Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 24CHCV04476, Date: 2025-05-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV04476    Hearing Date: May 20, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

DEMURRER TO ANSWER

Motion filed: 1/29/25

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Carmen Hernandez

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

NOTICE: procedurally defective – lacking signature on proof of service.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order sustaining the Demurrer to the joint Answer filed by Defendants Pedro Padilla Flores, Rebeca Padilla, and The Pedro Padilla Flores and Rebeca Padilla Revocable Living Trust.

TENTATIVE RULING: The Demurrer is SUSTAINED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from a dispute concerning a residential rental agreement for the property located at 10117 Remmet Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311 (the “Subject Property”).

On December 5, 2024, Plaintiff Carmen Hernandez (“Plaintiff” or “Hernandez”), a tenant, filed a Complaint against the landlords and owners of the Subject Property, Defendants Pedro Padilla Flores (“Flores”), Rebeca Padilla (“Padilla”), and The Pedro Padilla Flores and Rebeca Padilla Revocable Living Trust (the “Trust”) (collectively, “Defendants”), as well as Does 1 through 100, alleging the following ten causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment of the premises, (4) trespass, (5) nuisance (Civ. Code § 3479), (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (8) negligence, (9) wrongful eviction (Civ. Code, § 789.3), and (10) constructive eviction.

On January 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed requests for entry of default against each named Defendant – Flores, Padilla, and the Trust. The Clerk entered the default against the Trust on the same day. However, default was not entered against Flores or Padilla due to the deficiencies in the respective requests.

On January 16, 2025, Defendants Flores, Padilla, and the Trust jointly filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On January 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Demurrer to the Answer.

No Opposition or Reply papers have been filed.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.)

At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against them. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 714, 721.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) 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 (Berkley).) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

A demurrer to an answer challenges the sufficiency of the factual allegations of the answer. A defendant must plead ultimate facts rather than conclusions to state viable affirmative defenses. The allegations must be “averred as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and are alleged in the complaint.” (FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d. 367, 384.) 

A.    Procedural Deficiency

The Demurrer includes a proof of service indicating that it was served by both mail and electronic means, thereby implicating the requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure sections 1013a (mail service) and 1013b (electronic service).

Both methods of service require a valid affidavit or certificate of service, signed under penalty of perjury by the individual who performed the service. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1013a, 1013b; see also § 2015.5.)

Here, the proof of service identifies Brian Johnson as the declarant who purportedly executed the service. However, the document fails to include his signature, as evidenced by the blank space above the signature line.

Consequently, the proof of service does not satisfy the statutory requirements for a valid and signed declaration, rendering the notice procedurally defective as to Defendants Flores and Padilla.

Nevertheless, the Court will proceed to consider the merits of the Demurrer as it is directed to Defendant the Trust, against whom default was entered on January 15, 2025. Notice is not required for a party in default. (See Sporn v. Home Depot USA, Inc. 126 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1302 (Sporn) [“Defendant was in default and no longer entitled to notice[.]”])

B.     Demurrer to Answer – as to Defendant the Trust

It is well-established that once a default is entered, the defaulted defendant is no longer an active party in the litigation and thus was not entitled to participate in further proceedings. (Sporn, supra, 126 Cal.App.4th at p. 1302 [“The clerk's entry of default cuts off the defendant's right to take further affirmative steps such as filing a pleading or motion, and the defendant is not entitled to notices or service of pleadings or papers.”])

Plaintiff contends that the Answer filed by Defendant the Trust is improper and subject to demurrer because it was filed when default had been taken against the Trust. (Dem. at p. 2.) The Court agrees.

Here, default was entered against the Trust on January 15, 2025. As such, the Trust was no longer entitled to affirmatively participate in the litigation, including filing an Answer to the Complaint. Accordingly, the joint Answer, filed by Defendants which includes the Trust, is invalid and of no legal effect as to the Trust.

Therefore, the Court SUSTAINS the Demurrer in its entirety as to the Trust’s Answer, based on its defaulted status at the time of filing. In light of this determination, the Court does not need to consider alternative grounds that may apply to specific defenses raised by the Trust in the Answer.

However, as previously discussed, the Court OVERRULES the Demurrer as to Defendants Flores and Padilla due to Plaintiff’s failure to properly serve notice of the Demurrer.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Carmen Hernandez’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED IN PART.

The Court SUSTAINS the Demurrer as to the Answer filed by Defendant The Pedro Padilla Flores and Rebeca Padilla Revocable Living Trust. 

The Court OVERRULES the Demurrer as to the Answer filed by Defendants Pedro Padilla Flores and Rebeca Padilla.

Moving party to give notice.