Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV02147, Date: 2024-07-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02147    Hearing Date: July 10, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Demurrer of DOE 1 Defendant Petite Chateau, Inc. to First Amended Complaint.

BACKGROUND

FRANCISA RIVERA and DONALD PAZ (“Plaintiffs”) filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against ALMA AGUILAR, an individual and trustee and DOEs (Defendants), alleging that, as owner and lessor, and unknown DOEs, Defendants failed to remediate uninhabitable conditions involving roof leaks, mold, and cockroach infestation. Plaintiffs’ causes of action are (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, (2) Negligence, (3) Breach of Implied Covenant of Quiet Use and Enjoyment, (4) Nuisance, (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and (6) Violation of Business & Professions Code, Section 17200.

On 1/26/24, Plaintiffs filed an amendment substituting PETITE CHATEAU, INC. for Doe 1 (“Defendant”). Defendant has filed a demurrer to the FAC. Plaintiffs oppose the demurrer.

LEGAL STANDARD

Demurrers are to be sustained where a pleading fails to plead adequately any essential element of the cause of action. Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 879-880. Because a demurrer challenges defects on the face of the complaint, it can only refer to matters outside the pleading that are subject to judicial notice.” Arce ex rel. Arce v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 556. Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successfully stating a cause of action. Schulz v. Neovi Data Corp. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 86, 92.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

The Court grants Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice of its Articles of Incorporation and recorded Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

ANALYSIS

Defendant, a homeowner association, contends that the FAC fails to state facts to constitute a cause of action against it because it is not a landlord or lessor of Plaintiffs’ unit. The Court agrees.

Homeowner associations’ activities only relate to matters of damage to common areas or to separate interests that arise out of damage to the common area. E.g., Glen Oaks Ests. Homeowners Assn. v. Re/Max Premier Properties, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 913, 919–920.

Further, there must be privity of contract with the lessor in order for a tenant to sue a defendant for breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. Marchese v. Standard Realty & Dev. Co. (1977) 74 Cal. App. 3d 142, 147–148.

Here, the FAC contains no allegation that Defendant maintained any common area, but instead it repeatedly references the “Rental Unit” (e.g., FAC, ¶ 10). Also, Plaintiffs unsupportively allege that the nature of DOE 1’s responsibility is unknown (FAC, ¶ 5). These allegations are not sufficient to attach liability against Defendant for any of the causes of action in the FAC.

Plaintiffs’ opposition indicates a desire to assert allegations that Defendant maintained common areas causing damages. The Court therefore will allow leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

The Court sustains the demurrer with 20 days’ leave to amend.