Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV31598, Date: 2024-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV31598    Hearing Date: February 26, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On December 27, 2023, Plaintiff Jerome Eady filed this unlawful detainer action against Defendant Luke Banham.

            On January 19, 2024, 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. (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.)

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 Defendant has not filed a declaration demonstrating compliance with the meet and confer requirement. However, this is not a reason to overrule the demurrer. (Id., § 430.41(a)(4).) Therefore, the Court proceeds on the merits.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Defendant’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, §§ 451-452; Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 754.)

DISCUSSION

            “Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 367.) “Generally, ‘the person possessing the right sued upon by reason of the substantive law is the real party in interest.’” (Gantman v. United Pac. Ins. Co. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1560, 1566.) “[A] complaint filed by a party who lacks standing is subject to demurrer.” (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 1004.)

            Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that his interest in the premises is “head of household.” (Compl. ¶ 4.) This reveals as a matter of law that Plaintiff is not the real party in interest with standing to pursue unlawful detainer. Plaintiff neither owns the property nor has any right to payment of rent. Plaintiff is actually being sued for unlawful detainer by the real owner of the property, Circa 1200 LLC. (Def.’s RJN, Ex. 1-3.) In his answer to that complaint, Plaintiff did not deny any allegations, including that he is a tenant of the subject property, and Circa 1200 LLC is the owner. (Id., Ex. 4; Code Civ. Proc., § 431.20(a) [material allegations not denied are deemed as true].)

            It is apparent on the face of the complaint and from judicially noticeable materials that Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue unlawful detainer. Plaintiff does not oppose the demurrer, thereby conceding its merit. Because Plaintiff has not articulated how this defect can be cured, leave to amend is not warranted.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.