Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Ronald Chernin  

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Cadence St. Royale LLC, Studio Royale LLC dba Studio Royale 

 

BACKGROUND 

This is an unlawful detainer action.  Plaintiffs Cadence St. Royale LLC and Studio Royale LLC operate a residential care facility for the elderly located at 3975 Overland Avenue, Culver City, California (the “Property”).  Defendant Ronald Chernin is a resident of the facility.  Defendant failed to pay rent when due.  Plaintiffs served a 30-day notice to pay or quit on Defendant, and Defendant failed to comply with the requirements of the notice.   At the time notice was served, rent due was $24,089.52.   

This hearing is on Defendant’s demurrer to the unlawful detainer action.  Defendant argues that the 30 days’ notice served on him was defective and cannot support an unlawful detainer action because (1) it fails to include information required under Code Civ. Proc. §1161(2) and (2) it overstates the amount of rent due and does not set forth credits for the rent paid.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

“[A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable.  (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 (in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents).)  For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)  

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 (court shall not “sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment”); Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 (“A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.”).)  The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) 

DISCUSSION 

Defendant argues that the 30-day notice is defective because it overstates the amount of rent due and does not set forth credits for rent paid.  This defect does not appear on the face of the complaint, nor is it based on judicially noticeable facts.  Accordingly, it cannot support a demurrer.  

Defendant also argues that the 30-day notice is defective and cannot support an unlawful detainer action because it does not contain the information required by Code Civ. Proc. § 1161(2).  Section 1161(2) requires that a termination notice include “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 payment[.]”  The 30-day notice did not comply fully with this requirement.   

The notice states: “Payment in full of the Total Amount Due set forth above must be made prior to 5 p.m. on December 15, 2022 by check made payable to Studio Royale and delivered to Kimberly Eldridge, Operations Specialist, at Studio Royale, 3975 Overland Ave., Culver City, CA 90232, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The telephone number is (310) 836-5854.”  (Ex. 2 to Compl.)    

The notice contemplates that service be made personally.  But it fails to specify any “usual days” for receipt of payment.  It does not say whether payment can be made only on weekdays or on any particular day of the week.   

Landlords who use the summary remedy of unlawful detainer “must demonstrate strict compliance with the statutory notice requirements.”  (Culver Center Partners East #1, L.P. v. Baja Fresh Westlake Village (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 744, 749; see also WDT-Winchester v. Nilsson (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 516, 526 (§§ 1161 and 1162’s statutory requirements “must be followed strictly, otherwise a landlord’s remedy is an ordinary suit for breach of contract with all the delays that remedy normally involves and without restitution of the demised property”).)  

Because the notice is defective, it cannot support a cause of action for unlawful detainer.   (Cf. Foster v. Williams (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th Supp. 9, 16 (termination notice containing a URL address rather than a physical address for payment failed to comply with Code Civ. Proc. §116(2) and could not support an unlawful detainer judgment); Rubalcaba v. Daley, 2015 Cal. Super. LEXIS 14749 at *1-*2 (notice was defective where it did not include the telephone number or the hours when payment could be made).) 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend.  

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: March 17, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court