Background 

 

Plaintiff Darrion Glover filed a complaint against his landlord, Defendant AIDS Healthcare Foundation, alleging Defendant failed to take appropriate action against a troublesome tenant. The sole cause of action is one count of breach of contract. 

 

Defendant demurs to the complaint. Plaintiff opposes.  

 

The demurrer is overruled.  

 

Legal Standard 

 

When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. Wilson v. Transit Authority of City of Sacramento (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 716, 720-21. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994. “A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not on the evidence or facts alleged.” E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315. As such, the court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. Id. However, it does not accept as true deductions, contentions, or conclusions of law or fact. Stonehouse Homes LLC v. City of Sierra Madre (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 531, 538.  

 

Analysis 

 

1. Whether Plaintiff Adequately Plead Essential Elements of Breach of Contract 

 

“[T]he elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.” Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal. 4th 811, 821. “In an action based on a written contract, a plaintiff may plead the legal effect of the contract, rather than its precise language.” Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 192.  

 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to allege facts supporting breach because he does not explain the legal effect of relevant lease terms, identify which lease terms Defendant breached, or explain how Defendant breached them. Additionally, Defendant argues the terms of the lease that Plaintiff highlighted impose obligations only on Plaintiff.  

 

This argument fails to acknowledge that Plaintiff specifically refers to the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment in explaining Defendant’s breach of the lease. Compl. at p. 3 ¶ BC-2.  

 

“In the absence of language to the contrary, every lease contains an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, whereby the landlord impliedly covenants that the tenant shall have quiet enjoyment and possession of the premises.” Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 578, 588. A tenant suing for breach of quiet enjoyment may “stand upon the lease, remain in possession and sue for breach of contract damages.” Guntert v. City of Stockton (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 131, 140. 

 

In Andrews, supra, 125 Cal. App.4th 578, the court considered a case where the landlord of a mobile home park rented to a mobile homeowner who was allegedly interfering with the ability of another resident, to whom the landlord also rented, to enjoy their residency. As the court explained, “The perpetrator of the interference with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment need not be the landlord personally. There may be an actionable breach where the interference is caused by a neighbor or a tenant claiming under the landlord” Id. at 590 (citing Petroleum Collections Inc. v. Swords (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 841, 846; Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal. App.4th 503, 512). Whether a landlord’s failure to act against a troublesome tenant constitutes breach of contract is a triable question of fact. Id. at 593.  

 

Here, Plaintiff alleges that he was attacked by another tenant and that tenant’s guest. Compl. at p. 3 ¶ BC-2. Plaintiff further alleges that the tenant screamed for hours and directed racial slurs at the Plaintiff, that this conduct is ongoing, and that Defendant has not responded. Compl. at p. 12, Ex.IIa.  

 

These allegations are sufficient to support a cause of action for breach of contract based on the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. Accordingly, the Court overrules Defendant’s demurrer for failure to plead facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. 

 

2. Whether Plaintiff’s Complaint is Uncertain 

 

A court will sustain a demurrer if the pleading is uncertain, including if it is ambiguous or unintelligible. Code of Civ. Proc § 430.10, subd. (f). However, “[a] demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc., (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616. “Although inconvenient, annoying and inconsiderate, the lack of labels for plaintiff’s causes of action does not substantially impair [defendant]’s ability to understand the complaint.” Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139 fn. 2.  

 

Defendant argues that the complaint is uncertain for failing to plead the essential facts supporting breach by Defendant.  

 

Defendant’s argument as to uncertainty is thus entirely duplicative of its argument for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. As discussed above, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has adequately stated a claim and thus the Court also does not find the complaint is ambiguous and unintelligible.  

 

Conclusion 

Defendant’s demurrer is overruled. Twenty days to answer.