Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 25CHCV00143, Date: 2025-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 25CHCV00143    Hearing Date: May 7, 2025    Dept: F51

Dept. F-51¿¿ 

Date: 5/07/25

Case #25CHCV00143 

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F-51

DEMURRER

¿ 

Demurrer Filed: 1/24/2025

¿ 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Narina S. Galadzhyan (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Betty Bogar (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: OK¿ 

RELIEF REQUESTED: Moving Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s entire complaint for unlawful detainer.

TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer is overruled.

BACKGROUND

            This is an unlawful detainer action for property located at 10423 Garden Grove Avenue, Porter Ranch, CA 91326 in the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff seeks possession of the premises, costs incurred in this proceeding, past due rent in the total amount of $35,000.00, forfeiture of the lease agreement, and damages at the rate of $96.66 per day.

            On January 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed the complaint for unlawful detainer against Defendant Narina S. Galadzhyan.

On January 24, 2025 Moving Defendant filed the instant action. On April 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition. As of May 2, 2025 no reply has been filed.

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” and is uncertain, meaning “ambiguous and unintelligible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) and (f).) 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, Moving Defendant¿demurs to Plaintiff’s complaint on the basis that it fails¿to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer pursuant to section 430.10 subdivision (e).

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, Moving Defendant makes no showing that they attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff. 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.     Unlawful Detainer

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a single cause of action against Moving Defendant for “unlawful detainer.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 1166 subdivision (a) provides that the complaint shall: “(1) Be verified and include the typed or printed name of the person verifying the complaint; (2) Set forth the facts on which the plaintiff seeks to recover; (3) Describe the premises with reasonable certainty; (4) If the action is based on paragraph (2) of Section 1161, state the amount of rent in default; (5) State specifically the method used to serve the defendant with the notice or notices of termination upon which the complaint is based. This requirement may be satisfied by using and completing all items relating to service of the notice or notices in an appropriate Judicial Council form complaint, or by attaching a proof of service of the notice or notices of termination served on the defendant. Section 1166 subdivision (d)(1) states “In an action regarding residential property, the plaintiff shall attach to the complaint the following: (A) A copy of the notice or notices of termination served on the defendant upon which the complaint is based. (B) A copy of any written lease or rental agreement regarding the premises. Any addenda or attachments to the lease or written agreement that form the basis of the complaint shall also be attached. The documents required by this subparagraph are not required to be attached if the complaint alleges any of the following: . . .(iii) An action based solely on subdivision (2) of Section 1161.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161 subd. (d)(1).) “If the plaintiff fails to attach the documents required by this subdivision, the court shall grant leave to amend the complaint for a five-day period in order to include the required attachments.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161 subd. (d)(2).)

Moving Defendant asserts that Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action because Plaintiff’s 3-day notice to quit (“Notice”) seeks back rent for a period of two years, January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2024, and is therefore defective. Moving Defendant asserts “[m]oreover, there is no account number of a financial institution or the name and address of the institution (or state that payment shall be made pursuant to transfer procedure previously established) as required by California Code of Civil Proc. § 1161(2).” (Dem. 5:7-10.)

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff’s Notice does not seek rent older than one year due to Los Angeles Municipal Code section 49.99.2, which states “Rental arrears accumulated between October 1, 2021, and January 31, 2023, under this subsection must be paid by February 1, 2024.” (Opp. 4:1-3.) Plaintiff asserts that “Defendant has rental arrears which fall into the period specified above, specifically the month of January 2023.” (Opp. 4:6-7.) Plaintiff asserts that Moving Defendant’s rental arrears became due on February 1, 2024, which is within one year from the date of the service of the Notice.

            The Court finds that the complaint, completed on Form UD-100 complies with section 1166 subdivisions (a) and (d)(1). As to the Notice, Section 1161 subdivision (2) does not require a Notice to state an account number of a financial institution to be stated or an electronic funds transfer procedure. “The notice may be served at any time within one year after the rent becomes due.” (Code Civ Proc., § 1162 subdivision (2).)

            The complaint and Notice upon which the complaint is based sufficiently state a cause of action for unlawful detainer against Moving Defendant.

CONCLUSION¿ 

The demurrer is overruled. Moving Defendant to file their answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint within 5 days.