Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 25CHCV00328, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25CHCV00328    Hearing Date: March 27, 2025    Dept: F51

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F-51

DEMURRER

¿ 

Demurrer filed: 3/4/25

MOVING PARTY: Defendants John Wright; and John Wright Enterprises (collectively, “Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Tanly Thi Cao, as Trustee of the Cao Demaegt Trust Dated October 16, 2018; Brigid Lundberg; and Anna Lundberg (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

NOTICE: OK¿ 

¿ 

RELIEF REQUESTED: Defendants demur to Plaintiffs’ entire first amended complaint (“FAC”).

¿ 

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

BACKGROUND¿ 

This is an unlawful detainer action in which Plaintiffs allege that in 5/9/17, they entered into a written lease agreement with Defendants’ predecessor in interest, whereby the tenant agreed to pay Plaintiffs $7,500.00 in monthly rent, later increased to $7,956.75, for the leased premises located at 27565 Sierra Highway, Santa Clarita, CA 91351, for a duration of 10 years. (FAC ¶¶ 3a, 6.) On 12/18/24, Plaintiffs served Defendants with a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit, at which time Defendants allegedly owed Plaintiffs $ 24,123.80 in unpaid rent. (Id. at ¶¶ 9, 10, 12.)

On 1/29/25, Plaintiffs filed their original unlawful detainer complaint. On 2/25/25, Plaintiffs filed their FAC. On 3/4/25, Defendants filed the instant demurrer. On 3/7/25, Plaintiffs filed their opposition. No reply 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 is uncertain, meaning “ambiguous and unintelligible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (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, Defendants demur to the entire FAC on the basis that it is fatally uncertain.

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 Plaintiffs 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.     Uncertainty

Generally speaking, “demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and thus are strictly construed because ambiguities can reasonably be clarified under modern rules of discovery. Such demurrers are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Cal.Jur.3d § 137.) “Where the complaint contains substantive factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled or plaintiff given leave to amend.” (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (2011) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139 fn.2.)

Here, Defendants argue that the complaint is uncertain pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f) because “Plaintiffs egregiously fail to specify the relevant months for which this alleged unpaid rent accrued. This glaring omission renders the Notice not only ambiguous but also critically undermines the ability to ascertain the specific periods Plaintiffs seek to recover rent for.” (Dem. 2:16–19.)

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that “Defendant incorrectly adds the additional requirement that the 3-Day Notice is requires Plaintiffs to specify the specific months that rent is owed. However, this is not supported by the code nor has Defendant pointed to any authority that would require such information in their demurrer.” (Pls.’ Opp. 3:16–18.) Plaintiffs further argue that they “used the Judicial Council form for the unlawful detainer complaint— Plaintiffs have completed all applicable portions of the complaint and therefore, Plaintiffs has [sic] alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for unlawful detainer.” (Id. at 3:21–23.)

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs and finds that in applying the stringent standard for demurrers filed on the basis of uncertainty, the Court finds that the complaint is not “so incomprehensible” that Defendants cannot respond. Accordingly, the demurrer is overruled.

CONCLUSION¿ 

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