Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 24CHCV02068, Date: 2024-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV02068    Hearing Date: September 13, 2024    Dept: F51

DEMURRER

Demurrer filed: 8/16/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Alfredo Ayala; and Elizabeth Grijalva, in pro per (collectively, “Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Crystal Arellano, in pro per (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: OK 

RELIEF REQUESTED: Defendants demur to Plaintiff’s entire complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed demurrer is overruled. Defendants to file their answer to Plaintiff’s complaint within 5 days.

BACKGROUND 

This is an unlawful detainer action in which Plaintiff alleges that in January 2020, she entered into a written lease agreement with Defendants, whereby Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff $2,500.00 in monthly rent for the leased premises located at 13739 Louvre Street, Pacoima, CA 91331. (Compl. ¶¶ 3a, 6.) On 5/6/24, Plaintiff served Defendants with a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit, at which time Defendants allegedly owed Plaintiff $45,375.00 in unpaid rent. (Id. at ¶¶ 9a, 12.)

On 6/4/24, Plaintiff filed her complaint. On 8/16/24, Defendants filed the instant demurrer. No opposition has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

As a general matter, a party may respond to a pleading against it by demurrer on the basis of any single or combination of eight enumerated grounds, including that “the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) 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 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. (Ibid.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Here, Defendants demur to the entire complaint on the basis that it is not verified as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 1166, subdivision (a)(1).

A.    Meet-and-Confer

Before filing its demurrer, “the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41, subd. (a).) The demurring party must file and serve a meet and confer declaration stating either: “(A) The means by which the demurring party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer;” or “(B) That the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the demurring party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.” (Id. at subd. (a)(3).)

Here, Defendants make no showing that they attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff to informally resolve the issues raised in the demurrer. However, “a determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41, subd. (a)(4).)

B.     Verification

Here, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not verified her complaint, in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1166, subdivision (a)(1). (Dem. 5:13.) A complaint for unlawful detainer must “be verified and include the typed or printed name of the person verifying the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1166, subd. (a)(1).)

While Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the instant motion, the Court notes, upon review of the complaint, that Plaintiff has signed a verification on page 4 of the complaint. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the verification requirement set forth by Code of Civil Procedure section 1166, subdivision (a)(1). Accordingly, and as Defendants do not raise any other issue on demurrer, the unopposed demurrer is overruled.

CONCLUSION 

The unopposed demurrer is overruled. Defendants to file their answer to Plaintiff’s complaint within 5 days.