2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)

Citation: 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
Parent Document: 2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2022-08-31
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7861646/2710-sutter-ventures-llc-v-millis/ ↗

Full Text

1,409 chars

35
[Citation.] If we find that an amendment could cure the defect,
we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion and we
reverse; if not, no abuse of discretion has occurred. [Citation.]
The plaintiff has the burden of proving that an amendment
would cure the defect.’ ” (Perlas v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC (2010)
187 Cal.App.4th 429, 433.)
      Plaintiffs seek to amend their compliant to assert a claim
for ejectment, but they have not established entitlement to leave
to amend. The essential elements of an ejectment action are (1)
the plaintiff’s valid interest in the property and (2) the
defendant’s wrongful possession and withholding thereof. (Payne
& Dewey v. Treadwell (1860) 16 Cal. 221, 243; Baugh v.
Consumers Associates, Ltd. (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 672, 675,
superseded by statute on other grounds as noted in WDT–
Winchester v. Nilsson (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 516, 526.) Plaintiffs
claim they could amend their complaint to assert a viable claim
for ejectment, but they do not discuss the required elements or
show how they could be met. Specifically, plaintiffs do not
explain how they could maintain an action for ejectment when
the defendants are not in “wrongful possession” of plaintiffs’
property due to plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy the notice
requirement of section 37.9(e)(4).
                          DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed. BROWN, J. 36
WE CONCUR: NADLER, J.

Other Sections in This Document (66)

Full Text