Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV17622, Date: 2022-07-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV17622 Hearing Date: July 29, 2022 Dept: 52
Tentative Rulings:
Plaintiff E & A Santa Fe, LLC
filed a notice of related case for this case and three others named E &
A Santa Fe, LLC v. Care California Consultation, Inc., et al.: Nos. 22STCV17617,
22STCV17625, and 22STCV17747. All four cases
are unlawful detainer actions between the same parties regarding possession of
neighboring properties, 2038 Sacramento St., 2042 Sacramento St., 2042
Sacramento St., Unit B, and 2046 Sacramento St., Los Angeles, CA 90021.
The court finds the actions are
related under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)(1), (2), and (4).
The court orders that the four
cases are related. E & A
Santa Fe, LLC v. Care California Consultation, Inc., et al., No. 22STCV17617,
No. 22STCV17625, and No. 22STCV17747 are hereby reassigned to Department 52 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.
Defendant Care
California Consultation, Inc.’s Demurrer to Complaint
Defendant Care California
Consultation, Inc. demurs to plaintiff E & A Santa Fe, LLC’s complaint for
unlawful detainer.
Defendant contends that plaintiff’s
three-day notice to pay rent or quit is defective because it did not include
the precise language required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1161. Section 1161(2) provides that a tenant is
guilty of unlawful detainer if it remains in possession “after default in the
payment of rent, pursuant to the lease or agreement under which the property is
held, and three days’ notice, excluding Saturdays and Sundays and other
judicial holidays, in writing, requiring its payment, stating the amount that
is due” and other specified information “shall have been served upon the
tenant.”
The three-day notice to pay rent or
quit attached to the complaint states, “Within 3 business days after the date
of service… you are required to pay” or quit.
(Comp., Ex. 2.) Defendant
contends this notice is insufficient because business days are not the same as
judicial holidays. The complaint alleges
plaintiff served the three-day notice on May 10, 2022. (Comp., Ex. 3, proof of service of notice.) There were no judicial holidays or other
holidays until Memorial Day, over two weeks later. Any distinction between business days and
judicial holidays is therefore irrelevant.
Moreover, defendant cites no
authority that the notice itself must include the text “three days’ notice,
excluding Saturdays and Sundays and other judicial holidays.” The statute begins by stating the period of
notice, then provides that the notice must be “in writing, requiring its payment,
stating” numerous specified items. (CCP
§ 1161(2).) The information required to
be stated in the notice follows the word “stating” and does not include the
text defendant argues is required.
Finally, the parties’ commercial
lease provides for notice to pay or quit of three business days. “In commercial leases the landlord and
commercial tenant may lawfully agree to notice procedures that differ from
those provided in the statutory provisions governing unlawful detainer.” (Culver Center Partners East #1, L.P. v.
Baja Fresh Westlake Village, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 744, 750.) This action arises from a commercial
lease. (Comp., Ex. 1.) The lease defines “default” to include
failure to pay rent “where such failure continues for a period of 3 business
days following written notice to Lessee.”
((Id., ¶ 13.1(b).) The
parties therefore agreed to a notice period of three business days instead of “three
days’ notice, excluding Saturdays and Sundays and other judicial holidays”
under CCP § 1161(2).
Defendant’s demurrer is overruled.
Defendant Care California Consultation, Inc. is ordered to answer within five calendar days.