Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22AHCV00359, Date: 2022-09-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00359    Hearing Date: September 2, 2022    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT 3

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Atlantic West One, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Atlantic Square, LLC

Demurrer to Complaint for Unlawful Detainer

The court considered the moving papers and opposition filed in connection with this motion. No reply was filed.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Atlantic Square, LLC filed this unlawful detainer action on June 14, 2022 against Defendant Atlantic West One, Inc. arising out of a commercial lease of the property located at 2222 South Atlantic Blvd., Monterey Park, California 91754. Defendant is the tenant, and Plaintiff is the landlord.

            Defendant now demurs to the complaint on the basis that it is uncertain.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            The court grants Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) A demurrer “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)

A pleading is uncertain if it is ambiguous or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) A demurrer for uncertainty may lie if the failure to label the parties and claims renders the complaint so confusing defendant cannot tell what he or she is supposed to respond to.  (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.) However, “[a] demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends that the complaint is uncertain because Plaintiff alleges that a “Notice to Cure or Quit” was allegedly served but Plaintiff attached a “Notice to Pay Rent or Quit” to the complaint. As Plaintiff correctly notes, this is not a basis on which to find that a complaint is uncertain. Defendant also contends that Plaintiff failed to state the method used to serve the notice on which the complaint is based, but again, as correctly noted by Plaintiff, it is alleged at paragraph 10 of the complaint that the notice was served by substitute service on May 25, 2022. Contrary to Defendant’s assertion that the only two ways to satisfy the requirement are to use the Judicial Council form complaint or attach a proof of service to the complaint, Code of Civil Procedure section 1166, subdivision (a)(5) provides that the requirement “may” be satisfied in those ways. In any event, this defect is also not a basis for finding that the complaint is uncertain.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court overrules Defendant’s demurrer.

The court orders Defendant to file and serve an answer within 3 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  September 2, 2022

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court