Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 22TRCV01230, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV01230    Hearing Date: May 11, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                         May 5, 2023

Moving Parties:                      Defendants David Laird and Deborah Laird

Responding Party:                  Plaintiff Zheng Chen

Demurrer to Complaint

            The court considered the moving and opposition papers.

RULING

            The demurrer is OVERRULED.  Defendants are ordered to file and serve an answer within five days.

BACKGROUND

            On November 16, 2022, plaintiff Chen Zheng filed a UD complaint against David Laird and Deborah Laird based on a three-day notice to pay rent or quit for 409 15^th Street, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 for the period April 1, 2022 through November 30, 2022, based on monthly rent of $7,200.

            On January 17, 2023, the court granted plaintiff’s application for order to post.

            On February 16, 2023, the court denied defendants’ motion to quash.

LEGAL AUTHORITY

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.  “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.”  SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.  “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 v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.

CCP §1161(2) states:  “When he or she continues is possession . . . without the permission of his or her landlord . . . after default in the payment of rent, pursuant to the lease or agreement under which the property is held, and three days’ notice, in writing, requiring its payment, stating the amount which is due, the name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent payment shall be made, and, if payment may be made personally, the usual days and hours that person will be available to receive the payment . . . .”

DISCUSSION

            Defendants David Laird and Deborah Laird (self-represented) demur to the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer.

            Defendants assert that “there are currently protections against evictions for non-payment of rent due between July 1, 2022 and March 21, 2023 due to a COVID-19 financial hardship, for tenant households with income at or below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI).  Defendant is at or below the AMI and gave notice to Plaintiff.”  Defendants also argue that plaintiff did not comply with the Tenant Protection Act under Civil Code §1946.2(e)(8)(B)(iii), which states that “(B)(i) The tenants have been provided written notice that the residential property is exempt from this section using the following statement:  ‘This property is not subject to the rent limits . . . and is not subject to the just cause requirements . . . .’ . . . . (ii)(I) . . . for a tenancy existing before July 1, 2020, the notice required under clause (i) may, but is not required to, be provided in the rental agreement. . . . (iii)(I) . . . for any tenancy commenced or renewed on or after July 1, 2020, the notice required under clause (i) must be provided in the rental agreement.”

            In opposition, plaintiff argues that the allegations are sufficient and that he has alleged “each and every ultimate fact necessary or appropriate to constitute a cause of action” against defendants.  The judicially adopted form complaint is properly verified by plaintiff, the owner of the property.  As to defendants’ argument of giving notice of financial hardship, plaintiff does not allege.  As to any purported County protections, plaintiff asserts, defendants can raise as a defense.

            The court rules as follows:  “The Unlawful Detainer Act . . . sets out pleading requirements specific to unlawful detainer claims.  The complaint must be verified; set forth the facts on which the plaintiff seeks to recover; describe the real property with reasonable certainty; state the amount of rent in default, if applicable; and specifically state the method of service of notice of termination.”  Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal. 5^th 381, 395-95 (citing to Civil Code §1166(a)(1)-(5)).  Plaintiff has pled the elements based on a three-day notice to pay rent or quit.  Further, the complaint alleges that the tenancy is not subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (Civil Code §1946.2).  “The specific subpart supporting why tenancy is exempt is 1946.2(e)(8).”  On its face, the allegation is sufficient.

            The demurrer is OVERRULED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of ruling.