Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 23STCV11818, Date: 2024-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11818    Hearing Date: April 22, 2024    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Taylor, et. al. v. Such Great Heights, LLC , et. al., Case No. 23STCV11818 

Tentative Ruling re:  Defendant’s Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint

Defendant Such Great Heights, LLC requests that the Court sustain the Demurrer as to the fifth cause of action for violation of Civil Code Section 1942.4 to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend.  The demurrer is sustained with ten (10) days leave to amend.

In reviewing the legal sufficiency of a complaint against a demurrer, a court will treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 (Blank); C & H Foods Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 1055, 1062.) It is well settled that a “demurrer lies only for defects appearing on the face of the complaint[.]” (Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) “The rules by which the sufficiency of a complaint is tested against a general demurrer are well settled. We not only treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but also give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Guclimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38 (internal quotes omitted).) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, the complaint must be construed liberally by drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded. (Wilner v. Sunset Life Ins. Co. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 952, 958.)

When ruling on a demurrer, the Court may only consider the complaint’s allegations or matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) The Court may not consider any other extrinsic evidence or judge the credibility of the allegations plead or the difficulty a plaintiff may have in proving his allegations. (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.) A demurrer is properly sustained only when the complaint, liberally construed, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action. (Kramer v. Intuit Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 574, 578.)

Defendant Such Great Heights, LLC demurs to the fifth cause of action of Plaintiffs’ SAC. The demurrer is made on the grounds that: (1) the cause of action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and (2) the cause of action is  uncertain. The Court notes that Defendant fails to provide any substantive argument as to how the SAC is uncertain. Therefore, the Court provides the following analysis based on failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Civil Code Section 1942.4 provides: “[a] landlord of a dwelling may not demand rent, collect rent, issue a notice of a rent increase, or issue a three-day notice to pay rent or quit pursuant to subdivision (2) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if all of the following conditions exist prior to the landlord’s demand or notice:  

(1) The dwelling substantially lacks any of the affirmative standard characteristics listed in Section 1941.1 or violates Section 17920.10 of the Health and Safety Code, or is deemed and declared substandard as set forth in Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code because conditions listed in that section exist to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants of the dwelling. 

(2) A public officer or employee who is responsible for the enforcement of any housing law, after inspecting the premises, has notified the landlord or the landlord’s agent in writing of his or her obligations to abate the nuisance or repair the substandard conditions. 

(3) The conditions have existed and have not been abated 35 days beyond the date of service of the notice specified in paragraph (2) and the delay is without good cause. For purposes of this subdivision, service shall be complete at the time of deposit in the United States mail. 

(4) The conditions were not caused by an act or omission of the tenant or lessee in violation of Section 1929 or 1941.2.”  

 (Civ. Code, § 1942.4, subd. (a).) 

            Defendant only disputes the facts related to the third element of the fifth cause of action. (Reply p.2.)  The SAC alleges “Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and herein allege, that Defendant violated Civil Code section 1942.4 by not correcting conditions cited by government housing enforcement agencies within 35 days of issuance of the citation. There was no good cause for Defendants’ delay in making the required repairs. Moreover, the substandard conditions were not caused by any act or omission of the Plaintiffs collectively or individually who continued to pay rent.” (SAC ¶ 32.) The SAC further alleges “Plaintiffs are informed and believe . . . that Defendant violated Civil Code section 1942.4 by demanding rent, collecting rent, issuing a notice of a rent increase and/or issuing a three-day notice to pay rent or quit after not correcting conditions cited by government housing enforcement agencies within 35 days of issuance of the citation, including but not limited to, the following: 1) County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health notice of violation dated July 13, 2021, and attached hereto as Exhibit A; 2) County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health notice of violation dated June 17, 2022, and attached hereto as Exhibit B; 3) The Los Angeles Housing Department notice of violation dated August 23, 2022, and attached hereto as Exhibit C; 4) The Los Angeles Housing Department notice of violation dated October 3, 2022, and attached hereto as Exhibit D.” (SAC ¶ 33.) These alleged facts are insufficient to state a cause of action for Violation of Civil Code Section 1942.4 because they are conclusory. Further, the Plaintiffs’ attached exhibits are silent as to whether there was failure to abate or whether any alleged delay was due to a lack of good cause.