Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV32745, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV32745    Hearing Date: February 19, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On December 11, 2024, Plaintiff MBB Partners filed this unlawful detainer action against Defendant P1 Management, LLC for failure to pay rent.

            On December 23, 2024, Defendant 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.)

DISCUSSION

I. Verification

            A complaint for unlawful detainer shall “[b]e verified and include the typed or printed name of the person verifying the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1166(a)(1).) “[W]here a pleading is verified, it shall be by the affidavit of a party, unless the parties are absent from the county where the attorney has his or her office, or from some cause unable to verify it, or the facts are within the knowledge of his or her attorney or other person verifying the same.” (Id., § 446(a).) “When the pleading is verified by the attorney, or any other person except one of the parties, he or she shall set forth in the affidavit the reasons why it is not made by one of the parties.” (Ibid.)

            Here, the complaint is verified by Mehrdad Enayati, who avers that he is “the authorized agent for the Plaintiff.” Defendant argues that this is improper because the complaint was not verified by the party (Plaintiff), but rather by an agent, and the verification contains no explanation for why it was not made by the party as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 446(a). However, Plaintiff is a partnership, which can only act through its individual agents. For purposes of the verification requirement, Plaintiff has made the requisite verification through the signature of its agent. Defendant cites no legal authority suggesting that this is improper.

II. Uncertainty

            A demurrer for uncertainty is disfavored and is only granted “if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.) A complaint does not need to be a “model of clarity” to survive a demurrer because most ambiguities can be clarified through discovery. (Ibid.) 

            Defendant argues that the complaint is uncertain because it simultaneously alleges that “the rent was increased to $40,000 per month” and that “the Base Rent was increased to 150% of the Base Rent.” (See Compl. ¶¶ 9-10.) Defendant argues that this is confusing in relation to Exhibit 2 of the complaint (the three-day notice to quit), which claims an overdue amount of $80,000, or two months of $40,000 each, without reflecting a 150% increase. (See Compl., Ex. 2.) Thus, Defendant contends, it is unclear what amount the complaint is actually pursuing.

            However, the complaint is consistent in alleging that the total amount owed is $80,000. (Compl. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendant paid $20,000, leaving a balance of $60,000. (Id., ¶ 16.) The complaint prays for past-due rent of $60,000. (Id., Prayer No. 3.) Thus, the complaint and attached exhibits are consistent and unambiguous in the amount claimed. The complaint is sufficiently clear to survive a demurrer for uncertainty.

III. Notice to Quit

            A three-day notice to quit must state “the amount that is due, the name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent payment shall be made.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161(2).)

            The notice attached to the complaint states, “Payment made payable to Landlord, to MBB Partners, located at 6000 Avalon Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90003. The telephone number of MBB Partners is (323) 846-8100.” (Compl., Ex. 2.) Defendant argues that this is improper because it fails to identify the “person” to whom payment shall be made. Defendant cites no authority for its proposition that the three-day notice must identify an individual as opposed to an entity. If the landlord to whom payment is owed is an entity, there is no reason for the notice to identify someone else. 

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.