Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 22STCV34412, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV34412 Hearing Date: December 6, 2023 Dept: 76
Pursuant to California Rule of Court
3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed
herein. Counsel must contact the staff
in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the
tentative, or to argue the matter. As
required by Rule 3.1308(a), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL
OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and
argue.
Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to
smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.
Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.
This is an unlawful detainer action.
Defendants in pro per Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza and Ron A. Rosen Janfaza demur to the Complaint.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza and Ron A. Rosen Janfaza’s demurrers to the unlawful detainer cause of action in the Complaint are OVERRULED.
Both Defendants are ordered to answer Complaint within 5 days.
ANALYSIS
Defendant Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza and Ron A. Rosen Janfaza’s Demurrers
Meet and Confer
Because this is an unlawful detainer action, the meet and confer requirement does not apply. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 430.41(d)(2).)
Discussion
Defendants Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza and Ron A. Rosen Janfaza bring identical demurrers to the unlawful detainer cause of action in the Complaint. The Court will address both at once.
Although Defendants’ notice of motion demurs to individual paragraphs, that is not the function of a demurrer, it is the function of a motion to strike. The Court will consider whether the Complaint, as a whole, states a cause of action for unlawful detainer. “[W]e do not read passages from a complaint in isolation; in reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we read the complaint “as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Citation omitted.)” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 804.)\
The problem with Defendants’ demurrers is that they rely upon facts and evidence which are extrinsic to the Complaint, of which judicial notice has not been requested and granted, and thus, which cannot be considered on demurrer.
“A demurrer tests the pleadings
alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear
on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed (Code Civ. Proc., §§
430.30, 430.70). The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the
complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of
action [citation].” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905 [200 Cal. Rptr.
497].)
(Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)
These
extrinsic facts/evidence upon which Defendants’ arguments rely include: whether
an eviction moratorium was in effect at the time this unlawful detainer action
was filed; whether Defendants have suffered financial hardships related to the
COVID-19 Pandemic; the end of the declaration of local emergency; whether the
landlord Plaintiff has failed to maintain a habitable environment at the building;
whether Plaintiff is barred by the doctrines of laches, estoppel and unclean
hands; whether defendant is protected by the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, and
whether the demand for possession does not comply with the Act; whether
Plaintiff failed to comply with relocation assistance; whether this is a retaliatory
eviction for Defendants asserting rights under eviction moratoriums. In order for a demurrer based on an
affirmative defense to be sustained, the defense must clearly appear on the
face of the complaint; it is not enough that a claim “might be barred by
the defense, but is not necessarily barred.” (CrossTalk Productions, Inc. v. Jacobson
(1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 631, 635.)
Defendants’
demurrers to the Complaint are OVERRULED.
Defendants
are ordered to answer the Complaint within 5 days.