Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22AHCV00612, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00612    Hearing Date: October 13, 2022    Dept: 3

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – NORTHEAST District

Department 3

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Ying Ping Li

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Universal Shopping Plaza

Defendant’s Demurrer to Complaint

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

            This is a commercial unlawful detainer action involving real property located at 140 W. Valley Blvd., unit 212, San Gabriel, California 91776 (“Premises”) leased by Plaintiff Universal Shopping Plaza as landlord to Defendant Ying Ping Li as tenant. On August 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed its unlawful detainer complaint against Defendant. Defendant demurs to the Complaint on the grounds of (1) uncertainty and (2) a separate action is pending. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (c), (f).)

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.)

DISCUSSION

The Complaint’s Allegations

The allegations involve a simple unlawful commercial detainer action filed on a form complaint. Plaintiff is the landlord of the Premises and rented to Defendant the Premises under a written lease (Complaint Ex. 1) for $12,237.00 per month for 10 years, with monthly rent later adjusted to $16,740.99. (See generally Complaint ¶¶ 3-4, 6.) On August 12, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with a 3-day notice to pay or quit (“Notice”). Defendant did not comply with the Notice when it expired. (Id. ¶¶ 9-10, Ex. 2-3.)

Plaintiff now requests past due rent of $54,061.62; $600.68 in daily holdover damages starting from September 1, 2022; $20,586.48 for other damages (additional rent, property taxes, insurance, CAM estimate); and, attorney fees. (Id. ¶ 19.)

Request for Judicial Notice

The court grants the unopposed request for judicial notice of the complaint filed by Plaintiff against Defendant bearing LASC Case No. 21AHCV00143 (“21AHCV00143 Action”).

Demurrer

Defendant argues that the Complaint is uncertain. The general rule is that the plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts. (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.) “[D]emurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Lickiss v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.) In addition, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, courts strictly construe a demurrer for uncertainty “because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

Defendant contends the Complaint is uncertain because the Notice contradicts the lease. According to Defendant, the lease provides that rent payments are credited to the oldest past-due amounts first. Consequently, according to Defendant, Defendant’s payments under the Notice will go toward paying back rent that predates the Notice, instead of paying the back rent Defendant owes under the Notice. Be that as it may, any inconsistency between the Notice and lease can be addressed in discovery, and in any case, such inconsistency does not make the Complaint’s core allegation of unpaid rent uncertain. Accordingly, the court overrules Defendant’s demurrer on the grounds of uncertainty.

Defendant also demurs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (c), which authorizes a demurrer when another action is pending between the same parties “on the same cause of action.” This action involves possession of the Premises; the second action (21AHCV00143) involves contractual damages under the lease. Defendant contends both actions thus involve the same cause of action because they both involve interpreting the lease. The court disagrees. This action is an unlawful detainer action involving possession of the Premises. The 21AHCV00143 Action alleges breach of contract seeking money damages for unpaid rent. Moreover, the two actions cover different time periods: this action involves June to August 2022 (and onward for holdover damages) and the 21AHCV00143 Action involves the four years before Plaintiff filed its complaint in December 2021. (RJN Ex. A ¶ 15.)

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court overrules Defendant’s demurrer to the Complaint in its entirety.

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

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 13, 2022

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court