Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV03772, Date: 2025-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV03772    Hearing Date: May 15, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED is sustained; it appears Plaintiff has forfeited his right to this action.

Background

This case arises from the alleged breach of a lease agreement. Plaintiff DR. ARMANDO ISLAS alleges the following against Defendants CARLOS LUNA, an individual and as trustee of the LUNA FAMILY TRUST; ALICIA LUNA, an individual and as trustee of the LUNA I'AMILY TRUST: the parties entered into a month-to-month rental agreement in 2011; the rental unit is a detached three-bedroom house located on the lot of the house. In 2024 when Defendants increased the rent, Plaintiff refused to pay. (Complaint ¶12.) In 2023, Defendants brought an unlawful detainer action. (¶14.) “While defending against the Defendants' unlawful detainer action, the Plaintiff pulled 28 the permits on the Rental Unit. Plaintiff discovered that the Rental Unit did not have a certificate of occupancy.” (¶15.) Based thereon, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “fraudulently induced” Plaintiff to pay for a dwelling unit whose value is zero dollars such that Plaintiff is entitled to all rent paid ($42,330).

On November 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed suit asserting the following causes of action (COAs):

1.      Breach of Written Lease Agreement

2.     Rescission

3.     Violation of California Civil Code section 1940.2

4.     Unjust Enrichment and

5.     Unfair Business Practices

On April 16, 2025, Defendants filed the instant demurrer.

On May 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

On May 6, 2025, Defendants filed their reply.

Discussion

Defendants demur to the entirety of the complaint various grounds including that:

-        The Plaintiff forfeited all of his rights under lease per the stipulated unlawful detainer judgment;

-        The lease or rental agreement was terminated/dissolved by the unlawful judgment, i.e. there is no contract/obligations/promises to enforce;

-        The third Cause of Action Violation of 1940.2 does not state sufficient facts because the two incidents Plaintiff points to does not involve "force, willful threats, or menacing conduct constituting a course of conduct”;

-        Plaintiff claims he is owed all the money he paid in rent but the law despises a forfeiture

-        Plaintiff requests punitive damages which are not allowed for the damage unjust enrichment.

Here, there is one dispositive fact: the Plaintiff agreed to forfeit his rights under the rental agreement. A forfeiture is “[t]he divestiture of property without compensation” or “[t]he loss of a right, privilege, or property because of a crime, breach of obligation, or neglect of duty.”’” (Reply p. 3, citing Brandenburg v. Eureka Redevelopment Agency (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1364, emphasis added.) Put simply, the primary and legal meaning o the word “forfeit” is “to lose.” (Kuhlemeir v. Lack (1942) 50 Cal.App.2d 802, 808.) According to the UD Judgment, which is attached as Exhibit B to Defendants’ RJN which Plaintiff does not oppose, “Defendant(s) rights under lease or rental agreement are forfeited.” (RJN p. 13 of 16 of PDF.)[1] (The request is made, and the request is granted pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d) [records of any court of this state].) Having done so in exchange for living in the rental unit for free for months and for money to move out, Plaintiff cannot plead any cause of action which is dependent on the Defendant’s contractual duty. With that, it is unclear how “there is no mention of termination or extinguishment of the rental agreement in the Unlawful Detainer Judgment.” (Opp. p. 4:18-19.) To the extent that Plaintiff cites to Nmsbpcsldhb v. County of Fresno (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 954 to support said proposition, that case is inapposite as it involved the issue of whether the recission action was an action at law or an action in equity. (Id. at p. 962.)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the demurrer is sustained. As it appears Plaintiff forfeited his right to this action, the court will hear from Plaintiff as to whether this action is permissible.