Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23NWCV02960, Date: 2024-02-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02960    Hearing Date: February 5, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Pleadings in This Action – LASC. No. 23NWCV02960

On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff Maria R. Villagrana (Maria Villagrana) filed a Complaint – Unlawful Detainer against Defendants Laura Gonzalez, Maria Guadalupe, and Does 1 to 10 (the Unlawful Detainer Action).

The Complaint is based on allegations that Defendants breached a subtenancy agreement first entered in January 1, 2006 for tenancy at 12136 Lowemont Street, Norwalk, California 90650 (the Property), with Defendants first entering the agreement with the prior owner of the Property, “Jose” (deceased, or Decd.), Maria Villagrana later coming into ownership of the Property and “offering an agreement verbally to tenants,” and Defendants breaching the agreement by failing to make 12 payments of rent ($2,500 per month x 12 months equaling $30,000).

Maria Villagrana prays for possession of the premises, costs, past-due rent of $30,000, forfeiture of agreement, damages of $83.33 per day from September 6, 2023, and relief the Court deems just and proper.

Other Proceedings - LASC No. 22STCV05593

Prior to the above actions, on February 14, 2022, Laura Gonzalez initiated LASC No. 22STCV05593 (the Civil Action) by filing a Verified Complaint alleging claims of Quiet Title, Cancellation of Instrument, and Declaratory Relief against Maria Villagrana, her spouse, Jaime Villagrana, and all persons unknown claiming an interest in the Property. The Quiet Title claims sought quiet title over the Property. The Cancellation of Instrument claim sought cancellation of 2017 and 2018 grant deeds for the Property from Jose Gonzalez (Decd.)—Laura Gonzalez’s husband and Maria Villagrana’s father—to Maria Villagrana. Maria Villagrana demurred to that pleading, and the Court sustained the demurrer on September 8, 2022. The declaratory relief claim sought a declaration on rights and duties regarding Laura Gonzalez’s community property interest in the Property in light of payments made toward the mortgage by Jose Gonzalez during their marriage and whether the above grant deeds were void or ineffective.

On October 6, 2022, Laura Gonzalez filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleging the same three claims against the same three defendants. On July 6, 2023, the Court sustained a demurrer by Maria Villagrana to the FAC, finding that, as alleged, the Property was owned by Jose Gonzalez as sole property and was then transferred to his trust. Based on those pleadings, the Court found, the FAC only alleged a possible community property reimbursement action against the owner of the Property, which, per the FAC, would be Jose Gonzalez’s trust, provided the 2017 and 2017 deeds were voided or found ineffective. Thus, the Quiet Title and Cancellation of Instrument claims and derivative Declaratory Relief claims were found to be fatally deficient as pled.

On July 25, 2023, Laura Gonzalez filed a Verified Second Amended Complaint (SAC) alleging claims of (1) Declaratory Relief for Equitable Reimbursement on Real Property and (2) Unjust Enrichment against Maria Villagrana and all persons unknown claiming an interest in the Property. On December 4, 2023, the Court overruled a demurrer by Maria Villagrana to the FAC, reasoning among other things that the declaratory relief claim stated a controversy regarding Laura Gonzalez’s entitlement to reimbursement of community property assets by way of an equitable lien on the Property. However, the Court sustained the demurrer to the Unjust Enrichment claim on the ground that no such claim exists in California. The Court also granted a motion to strike portions of the SAC, specifically and only as to paragraph 32.

On January 8, 2024, Laura Gonzalez filed an Answer to the SAC.

Motion Before the Court – LASC. No. 23NWCV02960

On September 28, 2023, Laura Gonzalez demurred to the Complaint in the Unlawful Detainer Action.

On December 7, 2023, Laura Gonzalez filed notices of related case in both actions.

On December 18, 2023, the Court related the Civil Action and Unlawful Detainer Action.

On December 19, 2023, Maria Villagrana opposed the demurrer.

No reply appears in the record.

Request for Judicial Notice

The Court takes judicial notice of the SAC in the Civil Action, the 1996 marriage certificate for Laura Gonzalez and Jose Gonzalez, and the 2001 death certificate for Jose Gonzalez. (Demurrer, RJN, Exs. A-C; Evid. Code, §§ 452, subds. (c), (d), 453, subds. (a)-(b).)

Demurrer

Demurrer Sufficiency Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747; see Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) This device can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) To sufficiently allege a cause of action, a complaint must allege all the ultimate facts—that is, the facts needed to establish each element of the cause of action pleaded. (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 212, superseded by statute as stated in Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.) Thus, “[t]o survive a [general] demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) In testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-67.) A demurrer, however, “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228, disapproved on other grounds, Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158, 1162.) The face of the complaint includes exhibits attached to the complaint. (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94.) If facts appearing in the exhibits contradict those alleged, the facts in the exhibits take precedence. (Holland v. Morse Diesel Intern., Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1447, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in White v. Cridlebaugh (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 506, 521.)

Uncertainty Legal Standard 

A demurrer to a pleading lies where the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (f).) “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, disapproved on other grounds in Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 46 [holding claims for unfair business practices need not be pled specifically, impliedly disapproving Khoury].) As a result, a special demurrer for uncertainty is not intended to reach failure to incorporate sufficient facts in the pleading but is directed only at uncertainty existing in the allegations already made. (People v. Taliaferro (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 822, 825, disapproved on other grounds in Jefferson v. J.E. French Co. (1960) 54 Cal.2d 717, 719-720 [statute of limitations question].) Where complaint is sufficient to state a cause of action and to apprise defendant of issues he is to meet, it is not properly subject to a special demurrer for uncertainty. (See ibid.; see also Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643 [“A special demurrer [for uncertainty] should be overruled where the allegations of the complaint are sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant of the issues which he is to meet”].)

Order on Demurrer: OVERRULED.

A defendant may demur in an unlawful detainer proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1170.)

In her demurrer, Laura Gonzalez first argues that the Unlawful Detainer Complaint should be sustained because the allegations in the Complaint to the effect the Laura Gonzalez ever entered into a tenancy agreement are a lie, as shown by the judicially noticed documents. Laura Gonzalez also argues that the demurrer should be sustained because the Complaint contains nothing but “[m]ere recitals, references to, or allegations of material facts that are left to surmise [that] are subject to a special demurrer for uncertainty.” (Demurrer, pp. 3-6.)

In her opposition, Maria Villagrana cites a wealth of authority in opposition to Laura Gonzalez’s demurrer but only makes a single cursory and conclusory argument supporting the sufficiency or certainty of pleading. (Opp’n, pp. 3-5.)

No reply appears in the record.

The Court finds in favor of Maria Villagrana.

Any issues relating to whether allegations in the Complaint are lies are evidentiary, whereas a demurrer focuses on the pleadings. (See Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) The fact that the SAC was filed and has been judicially noticed does not change the Court’s determination because the allegations made in the SAC are not accepted as truth, even if verified. (Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 885 [Documents are only judicially noticeable to show their existence and what orders were made such that the truth of the facts and findings within the documents are not judicially noticeable].)

The Court also determines that the “material facts left to surmise” argument is not sufficiently elaborated as to merit a different outcome. As stated, the Unlawful Detainer Complaint is sufficient insofar as it alleges that a rental agreement exists between the parties and has been breached by Defendants.

To the extent that Laura Gonzalez demurs to the Unlawful Detainer Complaint on the ground that there is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action (the Civil Action)—otherwise known as a plea in abatement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (c)—the Court finds that such a demurrer would not have been sustained either. Both actions must be but are not based on substantially the same cause of action, turning on a determination of whether judgment in the first action would bar recovery in the second action (Lord v. Garland (1946) 27 Cal.2d 840, 848.)

Here, the SAC in the Civil Action alleges a single operative claim: Declaratory Relief for determination of whether Laura Gonzalez is entitled to reimbursement from Maria Villagrana as a result of community property contributions to the mortgage during Jose Gonzalez’s life and whether the 2017 and 2018 deeds are void or ineffective. (SAC, ¶¶ 33-35.) A determination on the right to reimbursement or validity of the 2017 and 2018 grant deeds, however, does not affect a determination on Maria Villagrana’s entitlement to possession of the premises or past due rent as a result of Defendants’ alleged breach of the purported oral agreement between the parties, which is the purpose of the Complaint in the Unlawful Detainer Action.

Defendant Laura Gonzalez’s demurrer is thus OVERRULED.

Conclusion

Defendant Laura Gonzalez’s Demurrer to the Complaint in the Unlawful Detainer Action is OVERRULED. Defendant is ordered to file an Answer within 5 court days.