TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer is overruled. Defendant to file its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint within 5 days. 

BACKGROUND 

This is a commercial unlawful detainer action in which Plaintiff alleges that on 6/30/21, it entered into a written lease agreement with Defendant, whereby Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff $6,466.91 in monthly rent until 6/30/25, for the leased premises located at 15148 Bledsoe Street, Unit A, Sylmar, CA 91342. (Compl. ¶¶ 3a, 6.) On 6/14/24, Plaintiff served Defendant with a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit, at which time Defendant allegedly owed Plaintiff $79,044.29 in unpaid rent. (Id. at ¶¶ 9a, 12.) 

On 8/8/24, Plaintiff filed its complaint. On 8/14/24, Defendant filed the instant demurrer. On 8/20/24, Plaintiff filed its opposition thereto. On 8/26/24, Defendant filed its reply. 

ANALYSIS 

Defendant demurs to the entire complaint on the basis that it is uncertain and that Plaintiff fails¿to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer. 

Defendant’s counsel declares that on 8/13/24, she sent Plaintiff’s counsel a meet and confer letter discussing the issues raised in the instant demurrer but received no response. (Decl. of Catherine J. Weinberg, ¶ 4.) Accordingly, the Court finds that counsel has satisfied the meet and confer requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. 

Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s 6/14/24 3-day notice to pay rent or quit was defective under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, “specifically the Notice fails to provide the name, telephone number and address of the person to whom the rent payment is to be made. Additionally, the Notice fails to provide the usual days and hours that the person will be available to receive payment.” (Dem. 5:17–20.) 

The unlawful detainer statute provides for the substantive requirements of the 3-day written notice for a tenant’s nonpayment of rent due: “requiring its payment, stating the amount that is due, the name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent payment shall be made, and, if payment may be made personally, the usual days and hours that person will be available to receive the payment.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1161, subd. (2).) 

Here, Plaintiff argues in opposition that the 3-day notice, attached as Exhibit 2 to the complaint, is code-compliant because it specifically states that “the payment shall be delivered to RIF II - Bledsoe Avenue, LLC, via U.S. Mail or express delivery carrier service, at 11620 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000, Los Angeles, CA 90025.” (Ex. 2 to Compl.) “As it concerns Defendant’s contention that the 3-Day Notice fails to set forth the dates and times that the payment may be delivered, … the requirement … is only applicable if the landlord has identified that the payment may be made in person.” (Pl.’s Opp. 2:25–3:1.) Here, the notice states that the payment shall be made by mail or express delivery service. (Ex. 2 to Compl.) 

In reply, Defendant maintains that the subject notice is defective because it “designated a limited liability company, a business entity, as the ‘person’ to whom payment could be made - but an LLC is not a natural person.” (Def.’s Reply 4:1–2.) The Court declines to reach such a conclusion concerning the merits of the case and reminds the parties that a demurrer proceeding tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint. Here, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that it served Defendant with the three-day notice to pay rent or quit in its form complaint, and Defendant does not raise any other insufficiencies in the complaint.  

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts to constitute a cause of action for unlawful detainer against Defendant. Accordingly, the demurrer is overruled. 

Defendant argues that the complaint is uncertain pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f). In applying the stringent standard for demurrers filed on this ground, the Court finds that the complaint is not “so incomprehensible” that Defendant cannot respond, especially given the analysis it has argued against the pleading. Accordingly, the demurrer is overruled on this ground. 

CONCLUSION 

The demurrer is overruled. Defendant to file its answer to Plaintiff’s complaint within 5 days.