Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: 22TRCV01482, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV01482    Hearing Date: January 26, 2023    Dept: M

Hearing Date:                         January 26, 2023

Moving Parties:                      Defendant Maya Peak

Responding Party:                  Plaintiff Venice Dreams, LLC

Demurrer to Complaint

            The court considered the moving and opposition papers.

RULING

            The demurrer is OVERRULED.  Defendant Maya Peak is ordered to file an answer within five days.

BACKGROUND

            On December 13, 2022, plaintiff Venice Dreams, LLC filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Maya Peak based on a three-day notice to pay rent or quit for the property at 740 Glenway Dr., #3, Inglewood for the period October 1, 2021 through November 30, 2022.

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

            Defendant Maya Peak (self-represented) demurs to the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer.

            Defendant argues that the notice to pay rent or quit is “inappropriate and defective” because the complaint “specifically requests damages which are based on the rental value on the property” and that such “language characterizes defendant as a former tenant” but that defendant was a “renter not a former tenant.”  Defendant cites to the language of CCP §1161b for foreclosed properties.

            In opposition, plaintiff argues that the complaint states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for unlawful detainer based on a three-day notice to pay rent or quit.  The complaint is pled on a judicial council form for unlawful detainer complaints.  Plaintiff asserts that all the appropriate and relevant sections of the verified unlawful detainer form complaint have been checked-off as well as attaching the three-day notice to pay rent or quit and the declaration of service of the notice.  Plaintiff also contends that this action is not brought under CCP §1161b as plaintiff owns the subject premises. 

            The court finds that the complaint alleges sufficient facts based on a three day notice to pay rent or quit and complies with the elements.

Accordingly, the demurrer is OVERRULED.

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of ruling.