Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV31389, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV31389    Hearing Date: March 1, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff Rescore Hollywood, LLC filed this unlawful detainer action against Defendants Eric Samules and Sara Samules. The complaint alleges past-due rent in the amount of $26,675.

            On February 22, 2024, Defendants filed the instant demurrer to the complaint. Plaintiff filed its opposition on February 23, 2024. The hearing on the demurer was advanced to March 1, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether a pleading states a cause of action or defense. (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 pleading, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action or defense. (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

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.) The Court notes that Defendants have not filed a declaration demonstrating compliance with the meet and confer requirement. However, this is not a reason for overruling a demurrer. (Id., § 430.41(a)(4).) Therefore, the Court proceeds on the merits.

DISCUSSION

I. Excessive Amount

            Defendants argue that the complaint fails to state a cause of action because the three-day notice demands an excessive amount of rent in violation of the rent concession provision in the lease agreement.

            First, none of the cited authority supports the proposition that a complaint is subject to demurrer for overstating the amount owed. For pleading purposes, Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendants owe $26,675 is assumed true.

            Second, the concession provision states that “[t]he concession and discounts indicated above are conditioned upon your full and timely compliance with the Lease Contract.” (Compl., Ex. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to comply with the lease by failing to pay rent. Therefore, the complaint sufficiently establishes that there was no rent concession.

II. Terminated Lease

            Defendants argue that this action improperly seeks rent on a terminated lease. Specifically, Plaintiff had sued Defendants in a prior UD action (23STUD02086), and the three-day notice in that case stated that the lease was terminated on December 12, 2022. Defendants contend that the parties did not mutually agree to reinstate the lease, and Plaintiff cannot claim rent on a nonexistent agreement.  

            The prior UD action failed based on Defendant Eric Samules’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, which successfully argued that the three-day notice was defective. Defendants now argue that the three-day notice was effective in imposing a termination date of December 12, 2022. This argument is not well-taken; Defendants cannot have it both ways.

Additionally, forfeiture under the Code of Civil Procedure occurs upon judgment in favor of the plaintiff in a UD action, i.e., the landlord. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1174.) Defendants cite no authority for the proposition that a lease is forfeited when a defendant tenant successfully defends a UD action. Under Defendants’ conception, any tenant who successfully fends off a UD action would thereafter be absolved of paying rent under the lease. No legal authority supports such a conclusion.

The prior UD action failed, and there was no judicial determination that Defendants defaulted on rent such that it would result in forfeiture of the lease. The judgment in the prior UD action did not state that the lease was forfeited. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1174(c) [where judgment is in favor of the plaintiff and the three-day notice elects forfeiture, “the judgment shall also declare the forfeiture of that lease or agreement”].) To the contrary, the judgment was in favor of Defendant Eric Samules, and the box for forfeiture of the lease remained unchecked. (December 12, 2023 Judgment.)

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED.

BACKGROUND

            On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff
Rescore Hollywood, LLC filed this unlawful detainer action against Defendants
Eric Samules and Sara Samules. The complaint alleges past-due rent in the
amount of $26,675.

            On January 2, 2024, Defendants filed
the instant motion to quash service of summons for lack of proper service. Plaintiff
filed its opposition on February 23, 2024.

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he court in which an action is pending
has jurisdiction over a party from the time summons is served on him as
provided by Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10).” (Code Civ. Proc, §
410.50(a).) “[A] court acquires jurisdiction over a party by proper service of
process or by that party's general appearance.” (In re Jennifer O.
(2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 539, 547.) Actual notice of a lawsuit is not a
substitute for proper service of process. (Abers v. Rohrs (2013) 217
Cal.App.4th 1199, 1206.) A defendant may serve and file a notice of motion to
quash service of summons on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a).)

DISCUSSION

            Code of Civil Procedure section 1014
lists the acts which constitute a general appearance. (Air Machine Com SRL
v. Superior Court (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 414, 425; Humphrey v. Bewley
(2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 571, 580.) Section 1014 provides as follows: “A defendant
appears in an action when the defendant answers, demurs, files a notice of
motion to strike, files a notice of motion to transfer pursuant to Section
396b, moves for reclassification pursuant to Section 403.040, gives the
plaintiff written notice of appearance, or when an attorney gives notice of
appearance for the defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1014.)         

            Here, Defendant Eric Samules made a
general appearance by filing a motion to reclassify on January 10, 2024.
Furthermore, both Defendants filed a demurrer on February 22, 2024. Because
Defendants have generally appeared, they have submitted to the jurisdiction of
the Court. Therefore, the motion is moot.

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ motion to quash is
DENIED.