Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCV01344, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDept71@LACourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.

Defendant Conner James Hennessy’s pro per unopposed demurrer to Plaintiff Circa 1200, LLC’s complaint for unlawful detainer is overruled.

Defendant Conner James Hennessy (“Hennessy”) (“Defendant”), in pro per, demurs unopposed to the complaint (“Complaint”) of Plaintiff Circa 1200, LLC (“Circa”) (“Plaintiff”) on the grounds that the claim fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a viable cause of action. (Notice of Demurrer, pg. 1.)

On January 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed its operative Complaint against Defendant alleging a single cause of action for unlawful detainer arising from the termination of a written one-year term lease with Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest for real property located at 1200 S. Figueroa Steet #E3023, Los Angeles, CA 90015 (“Premises”). (See Complaint ¶¶3, 6.)

Defendant filed the instant demurrer on February 16, 2024. As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant agreed to rent the Premises on or about May 19, 2022, for a one-year term. (Complaint ¶6a.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant agreed to pay monthly rent of $5,058.00. (Complaint ¶6a.) Plaintiff alleges this written agreement was made with Plaintiff’s agent. (Complaint ¶6b.) Plaintiff alleges a copy of the written lease agreement is not attached because this action is solely for nonpayment of rent under C.C.P. §1161(2). (Complaint ¶6f.) Plaintiff alleges the tenancy is not subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. (Complaint ¶7a.)

Plaintiff alleges Defendant was served with a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit. (Complaint ¶9a(1).) Plaintiff alleges on December 22, 2023, the period stated in the notice checked in 9a expired at the end of the day and the notice included an election of forfeiture. (Complaint ¶¶9b, 9d, 9e; Exh. 2.) Plaintiff alleges the notice was served on Defendant by posting a copy on the premises on December 19, 2023, and giving a copy to the person found residing at the premises and mailing a copy to Defendant at the premises on to Defendant on December 19, 2023, because no person of suitable age or discretion could be found there. (Complaint ¶10a, d; Exh. 3.)

Plaintiff alleges at the time the 3-day notice to pay rent or quit was served, the amount of rent due was $45,522, and the fair rental value of the premises is $168.60 per day. (Complaint ¶¶12-13.)

In support of his demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant argues the claim fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a viable cause of action because the Complaint is not properly verified. (Demurrer, pgs. 4-5; C.C.P. §430.10(e).)

“[A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) 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. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Insurance Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital District (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

A cause of action for unlawful detainer must allege the following elements: (1) a verified complaint; (2) facts on which the plaintiff seeks to recover; (3) description of premises with reasonable certainty; (4) amount of rent in default, if the action is based on paragraph (2) of §1161; (5) specifically the method used to serve the defendant with the notice or notices of termination; (6) in action regarding residential property, unless agreement is oral, landlord lacks possession of writing, or action is based solely on C.C.P. §1161(2), attachments including copies of (a) notices of termination served on the defendant, (b) any written lease or rental agreement regarding the premises, including any addenda or attachments to the lease. (C.C.P. §1166; see also Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1425 [alleging and proving proper service on lessees of a valid three-day notice to pay or quit is essential to declaring lessors’ judgment for possession under §1161].)

Plaintiff’s Complaint is compliance with §1161(a)(1) because C.C.P. §446 provides, in part,

When the verification is made by the attorney for the reason that the parties are absent from the county where he or she has his or her office, or from some other cause are unable to verify it, or when the verification is made on behalf of a corporation or public agency by any officer thereof, the attorney’s or officer’s affidavit shall state that he or she has read the pleading and that he or she is informed and believes the matters therein to be true and on that ground alleges that the matters stated therein are true. However, in those cases the pleadings shall not otherwise be considered as an affidavit or declaration establishing the facts therein alleged.

Here, Plaintiff’s attorney verified Plaintiff’s complaint by stating he is making the verification for and on behalf of Plaintiff because Plaintiff is absent from LA County where Plaintiff’s attorney’s office is located, and includes his typed name, signature, a statement that he has read the pleading and knows its contents, and that he is informed and believes, and on that ground alleges, that the matters stated in the Complaint and supplemental allegations are true. (Verification.) Further, Plaintiff’s attorney’s verification is signed under penalty of perjury. (Verification.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s attorney’s verification is proper.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court