Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 25STCV00624, Date: 2025-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV00624    Hearing Date: March 3, 2025    Dept: 52

Defendants Hyun Kim, Jin Bae, David Kang, and Young Hong’s Demurrer to Complaint

            Defendants Hyun Kim, Jin Bae, David Kang, and Young Hong jointly demur to the unlawful detainer complaint by plaintiff Equitable City Center, LLC. 

A demurrer “test[s] the legal sufficiency of a complaint.”  (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)  In reviewing a complaint challenged by demurrer, the court must “accept as true all the material facts properly pleaded” and does not “go beyond the four corners of the complaint, except as to matters which may be judicially noticed.”  (Thornburn v. Department of Corrections (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1287-1288.)  Any ambiguity in the complaint is viewed in favor of the plaintiff.  This is because the court must liberally construe the complaint and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the party asserting the claims.  (Robertson v. Saadat (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 630, 639.)

Sufficiency of Three-Day Notice

The notice of demurrer contends the “three-day notice allegedly served on Defendants [was] defective as it does not contain the information required by” Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision 2.  (Demurrer, p. 2.)    A three-day notice to quit must “stat[e] 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 … , or the number of an account in a financial institution into which the rental payment may be made, and the name and street address of the institution … , or if an electronic funds transfer procedure has been previously established, that payment may be made pursuant to that procedure.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161, subd. 2.) 

Plaintiff’s verified complaint includes a copy of the “Three Day Notice to Pay or Quit.”  (Comp., ¶ 7, Ex. B.)  The notice includes everything required.  It states $37,776.62 is the estimated amount of rent due (ibid.), which is permitted for commercial property.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161.1, subd. (a).)  The notice specifies the name, address, and telephone number of the person to pay: “Yung Kim, at 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2700, Los Angeles, CA 90010, (213) 383-3435.”  (Comp., Ex. B.)  Finally, it specifies that Yung Kim “will be available to receive the payment personally Mondays through Fridays between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM.”  (Ibid.)  Defendants’ memorandum of points and authorities does not address this basis for the demurrer.  They do not identify what information is missing.

Service of Three-Day Notice

Defendants also demur on the basis that the three-day notice was not properly served on them, and they did not receive it before appearing in this action.  (Demurrer, pp. 3-5.)  Code of Civil Procedure section 1162, subdivision (b) provides, “The notices required by Section 1161 may be served upon a commercial tenant by any of the following methods: [¶] (1) By delivering a copy to the tenant personally.  [¶] (2) If he or she is absent from the commercial rental property, by leaving a copy with some person of suitable age and discretion at the property, and sending a copy through the mail addressed to the tenant at the address where the property is situated.”

Plaintiff’s verified complaint includes a proof of service attached to the three-day notice.  (Comp., Ex. B, p. 2.)  The proof of service states declarant Theresa Marin served the three-day notice “To: E-Outlet, Inc., Tenant(s) in Possession” by “LEAVING a copy of the notice for the tenant(s) named above with a person of suitable age and discretion at the leased premises, said tenant(s) being absent from [the premises] on 10/30/24 and MAILING a copy to each tenant by depositing said copy in the United States mail.”  (Ibid.)  That is a valid manner of service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1162, subdivision (b)(2).  The complaint therefore alleges the necessary facts to constitute a cause of action for unlawful detainer.  Whether defendants received the three-day notice and whether the proof of service is true are questions of fact that cannot be resolved on demurrer. 

Disposition

            Defendants Hyun Kim, Jin Bae, David Kang, and Young Hong’s demurrer is overruled.  Defendants Hyun Kim, Jin Bae, David Kang, and Young Hong are ordered to answer the complaint within 5 days.