Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: 23GDCV01457, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23GDCV01457 Hearing Date: September 1, 2023 Dept: E
Case No:23GDCV01457
Hearing Date: 09/01/2023 – 10:00am
Trial Date: UNSET
Case Name: SILVER SPOON INVESTMENTS INC., v. PERFEKTHA
WELLNESS AND AESTHETIC SPA LLC; JOSE REYES; DAYSI RAMIREZ DE REYES; MEELAD
MOHAMMADI; AND MARIA F. RIVERA
Moving Party: Defendants, Meelad Mohammadi and Maria F.
Rivera
Responding Party: Plaintiff,
Silver Spoon Investments Inc.
RELIEF REQUESTED
The notice page indicates the Defendants, Meelad
Mohammadi and Maria F. Rivera, demur to the Complaint on the ground that no
cause of action has been stated by Plaintiffs. On page 3 of the demurrer, which
is after the notice page, but before the memorandum, Defendants list 4 separate
grounds for demurrer:
(1) Defendant generally demurs to the unlawful
detainer complaint filed by Plaintiff pursuant to Delta Imports, Inc. v.
Municipal Court (1983) 146 CA3d 1033, in which the court held that the
landlord’s complaint failed to allege proper notice, which is a prerequisite to
an unlawful detainer action.
(2) Defendant demurs to the unlawful detainer
complaint filed by Plaintiff on the ground that Notice is defective Pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure § 1161 and 1946.1(h).
(3) Defendant generally demurs to the unlawful
detainer complaint filed by Plaintiff on the grounds that pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure § 430.10(e), the pleading does not state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action.
(4) Defendant demurs to the unlawful detainer
complaint filed by Plaintiff on the ground that pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure § 430.10(f), the pleading is uncertain. Because of its uncertainty,
Defendants must speculate as to its meaning, which speculation leads to it
being ambiguous and unintelligible.
BACKGROUND
The instant action was filed on 7/12/2023 and is
a form Complaint pertaining to unlawful detainer.
PROCEDURAL ANALYSIS
The demurrer was timely filed and served.
LEGAL STANDARDS FOR DEMURRERS
Demurrer – Sufficiency
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.) The court “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting
all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or
conclusions of fact or law ….” (Berkley
v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.)
In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be
apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004)
116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) A demurrer
tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters; therefore,
it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are
judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§
430.30, 430.70.) 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.)
The general rule is that the plaintiff need only
allege ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts.
(Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.) “All that is required of a plaintiff, as a
matter of pleading … is that his complaint set forth the essential facts of the
case with reasonable precision and with sufficient particularity to acquaint
the defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action.” (Rannard v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
(1945) 26 Cal.2d 149, 156-157.)
On demurrer, a trial court has an independent
duty to “determine whether or not the … complaint alleges facts sufficient to
state a cause of action under any legal theory.” (Das v. Bank of America, N.A. (2010)
186 Cal.App.4th 727, 734.) Demurrers do
not lie as to only parts of causes of action, where some valid claim is alleged
but “must dispose of an entire cause of action to be sustained.” (Poizner v. Fremont General Corp. (2007)
148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.) “Generally it
is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there
is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.” (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d
335, 349.)
Demurrer – Uncertainty
A special demurrer for uncertainty, CCP section
430.10(f), is disfavored and will only be sustained where the pleading is so
bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e., cannot reasonably determine
what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are
directed against him/her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993)
14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Moreover, even if the pleading is somewhat
vague, “ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Ibid.)
TENTATIVE RULING
This
is an unlawful-detainer action for a commercial property.
Under
CCP §1166(a):
The complaint
shall:
(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.
(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.
(CCP §1166(a)(1)-(5).)
“The basic
elements of unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent contained in Code of
Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (2), are (1) the tenant is in possession of
the premises; (2) that possession is without permission;
(3) the tenant is in default for nonpayment of rent; (4) the tenant has been properly served with a written three-day notice;
and (5) the default continues after the three-day notice period has elapsed.” (Kruger
v. Reyes (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 17 citing Davidson v. Quinn (1982)
138 Cal.App.3d Supp. 9, 11, 188 Cal.Rptr. 421.)
The Complaint appears to meet the
basic requirements of CCP § 1166. The
Demurrer appears to be a boilerplate document, simply cut-and-pasted from a
prior template.
Among other
things, the Demurrer states at page 6, lines 10-12, the following:
Furthermore the 3-day notice alleged in
complaint section 9a(6) [sic] is based under Civil Code §1946.2(c) Maintaining,
committing, or permitting the maintenance or commission of a nuisance, the
attached notice does not mention a nuisance or any other disturbance to that
degree.
This statement is simply incorrect
and borderline incomprehensible.
Plaintiff did not check box 9(a)(6) on the UD-100 form Complaint. The
Court simply does not understand what the Defendants are referring to with this
statement—unless, as the Court suspects, this is just text copied from some
other pleading in some other case.
The Court can only conclude that
defendants copied and pasted this language from a demurrer in some other
action, or some general template, and filed that document here, which may
suggest bad faith on the part of the defendants in filing this demurrer,
causing the Court to try to decipher its entirely inapposite and irrelevant
arguments.
The Demurrer is
overruled and defendants are ordered to file and serve an answer within five
days of this order.