Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV19345, Date: 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19345    Hearing Date: August 24, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff Deshaun El filed this unlawful detainer action against Defendant First Team Appraisal regarding the property located at 5272 Southridge Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90043. On June 27, 2022, Defendant filed the instant demurrer to the complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Id.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 747.)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff’s complaint contains no recitation of any facts whatsoever, thus failing to state a cause of action, for unlawful detainer or otherwise. Additionally, judgment was previously entered in the case First Team Appraisal, Inc. v. Deshaun El (Case No. 21STCV43944), wherein it was established that First Team Appraisal is the owner in fee simple of the Southridge Ave. property and that Deshaun El has no right, title, or interest whatever in the property. (Def.’s RJN, Ex. 2.) Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the demurrer is taken as a concession that it has merit. Plaintiff fails to articulate how the complaint can be amended to state a cause of action. Thus, leave to amend is not warranted.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.