Judge Christian R. Gullon, Case Number: 24PSCV02095, Date: 2024-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV02095, Date: 2024-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV02095 Hearing Date: September 30, 2024 Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT is OVERRULED; this is a UD

COA pertaining to commercial property, not breach of contract.

Background

This is an unlawful detainer action.

On June 28, 2024, Plaintiff 1301 EAST GLADSTONE STREET INVESTORS, LLC filed suit against Defendant Pink Sponge for unpaid rent of $34,443 (minus other costs).

On July 15, 2024, Defendant filed the instant demurrer.

On September 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

To date, as of Wed., 9/25, no reply has been filed (due 9 court days before hearing [Fri. 9/20].

Discussion

Defendant demurs to the complaint because “Plaintiff neither attaches a copy of the lease agreement with defendant to the Complaint nor alleges all material terms of the lease agreement.” (Demurrer p. 3:22-24.)

However, as noted in opposition, this is not a breach of contract COA. As for the requirement that the complaint provide the written lease, that applies to residential property. (See Code of Civ. Proc., §1166(c)(d)(1)(B).) Otherwise, the complaint need only (1) be verified, (2) “set forth the facts on which the plaintiff seeks to recover,” (3) describe the premises, (4) state the amount of rent in default, and (5) specifically state the method used to serve defendant with the required notice. (Demurrer p. 2, citing § 1166, subd. (a).)

Here, the lease involves commercial property. Accordingly, the complaint adequately states a (statutory COA) for unlawful detainer as it complies with section 1166. Defendant has not filed a reply to address the foregoing.

Merits aside, the court notes that the parties did not adequately meet and confer. Defense Counsel sent Plaintiff’s Counsel a letter on July 11, 2024 laying out the arguments set forth in the demurrer; that is four days before the demurrer was filed, which does not provide opposing counsel with sufficient time to respond. For any future motions, the parties are to meaningfully meet and confer and provide a detailed declaration as to what was discussed and why the issue(s) could not be resolved.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the demurrer is overruled.