Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 22AHCV01199, Date: 2023-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV01199    Hearing Date: January 3, 2023    Dept: 3

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – NORTHEAST District

Department 3

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Vege Paradise Restaurant Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Universal Shopping Plaza

Defendant’s Demurrer to Complaint

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

BACKGROUND

This case is a commercial unlawful detainer for non-payment of rent involving the property located at 140 W. Valley Blvd., Unit 222, San Gabriel, CA 91776 (“Premises”).  Defendant demurs to the complaint, arguing the Complaint fails to state a cause of action because Plaintiff’s Three-Day Notice (“Notice”) to Defendant to pay rent or quit was defective. (Demurrer “Dem.”, ¶ ¶ 4-6.)

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

Plaintiff alleges Defendant agreed to rent the Premises owned by Plaintiff for 5 years at $13,103.45 per month, beginning on or about December 1, 2016, with rent later being adjusted to $14,996.21. (Complaint, ¶ 6.)  Plaintiff alleges Defendant was served Notice to pay rent or quit on October 10, 2022. (Id. at ¶ ¶ 9a(1), 9b; Ex. B.)  At the time the Notice was served, the rent and fees due was $111,345.17. (Ex. B.)  Plaintiff requests damages in the amount of the fair rental value of the premises, namely $499.87 per day, in addition to the $111,345.17. (Id. at ¶ 13.) 

On December 6, 2022, Defendant filed the present demurrer on the basis that Plaintiff’s Notice, as prescribed by Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure for unlawful detainer, was defective because (1) the Notice overstates the amount owed by Defendant because it does not take into consideration the security deposits made by Defendant and (2) the Notice fails to include the name of the person to accept payment as required by Civ. Code Pro. § 1161(2). (Dem., ¶ ¶ 4-6.)  Defendant contends that Plaintiff has thus not strictly complied with notice requirements for an unlawful detainer.  

Defendant’s contentions are unavailing. The first contention relies on disputed facts involving security deposits purportedly made by Defendant that lie beyond the complaint’s four corners.  A court may not resolve disputed facts through a demurrer. The second contention fails because the notice complies with section 1161, subdivision (2): the notice names Stephen Jiang as the “Agent for [landlord] Universal Shopping Plaza” and says payment may be made to “the Landlord’s Agent” at the address indicated. (Ex. B.)

CONCLUSION

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

The court orders Defendant to file and serve its answer within 5 days of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 3, 2023

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court