Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV03812, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03812    Hearing Date: April 17, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff YB Real Estate Properties III, LLC filed this unlawful detainer action against Defendants Nuria Hernandez and Santos Solis. On March 3, 2023, Defendant Solis filed the instant demurrer to the complaint.

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. (Ibid.) 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, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.) A complaint will survive demurrer if it sufficiently apprises the defendant of the issues, and specificity is not required where discovery will clarify the ambiguities. (See Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 608.) All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the complaint. (Kruss v. Booth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 699, 713.)

MEET AND CONFER

Before filing a demurrer or a motion to strike, the demurring or moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to or the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, 435.5.) Defendant has not complied with the meet and confer requirement. His declaration does not indicate any attempt to contact Plaintiff’s counsel to resolve the matter informally. Nonetheless, the demurrer fails on the merits, as discussed below.

DISCUSSION

            A complaint for unlawful detainer must meet the following requirements:

(1) Be verified and include the typed or printed name of the person verifying the complaint;

(2) Set forth the facts on which the plaintiff seeks to recover;

(3) Describe the premises with reasonable certainty;

(4) If the action is based on paragraph (2) of Section 1161, state the amount of rent in default; and

(5) State specifically the method used to serve the defendant with the notice or notices of termination upon which the complaint is based. This requirement may be satisfied by using and completing all items relating to service of the notice or notices in an appropriate Judicial Council form complaint, or by attaching a proof of service of the notice or notices of termination served on the defendant.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1166(a).)

            Defendant argues that the complaint is deficient because the 3-day notice does not specify the amount of rent due or the applicable months. (Solis Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant insists that he has paid his portion of the rent. (Ibid.) Defendant contends that the lawsuit is fraudulent and that the “tenancy was not terminated at-fault just case.” (Solis Decl. ¶ 4.)

            Whether Defendant properly paid rent, and the reasons for the lawsuit, are not matters subject to demurrer. A demurrer only tests the allegations on the face of the complaint. The complaint sufficiently states a cause of action for nonpayment of rent. Contrary to Defendant’s assertions, the 3-day notice attached to the complaint states that the rent due through January 31, 2023 was $25,710. (Compl., Ex. 2.) Plaintiff also satisfied the requirement by completing the relevant items in the standard Judicial Council form. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1166(a)(5).)

CONCLUSION

            Defendant Santos Solis’s demurrer is OVERRULED.