Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from a landlord-tenant dispute.  Plaintiff Judy Choothesa (“Tenant”) rented residential real property from Defendant Canyon Native Rental Properties, LLC (“Landlord”) located at 502 Fernwood Pacific Dr., Topanga, California (the “Premises”).  Tenant claims several habitability defects including foul odor from leaking septic water, electrical issues with the wiring, noises from the septic system, a retaining wall that fell in the kitchen, infestation of ants and spiders, insufficient lighting in the garage and parking areas, a faulty water heater, broken doorknob and lock, and uneven and unstable porch.  When Tenant complained of these defects, she claims Landlord retaliated against her by harassing and threatening her and by withholding services.  Tenant also claims Landlord engaged in “deceit” by failing to disclose the material defective conditions with the Premises and that the unit was an illegal dwelling.   

The operative complaint alleges claims for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) retaliation, (4) nuisance and (5) deceit.   

This hearing is on Landlord’s demurrer and motion to strike the complaint.  Landlord argues that Tenant fails to plead with particularity her claim for deceit, and the remainder of her complaint is fatally uncertain as it is unclear which causes of action are being alleged against Landlord.  Landlord also moves to strike Tenant’s prayer for attorneys’ fees on the ground Tenant is self-represented and therefore, cannot be entitled to attorneys’ fees.  No opposition was filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.   

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.)  

A demurrer to a complaint may be general or special.¿ A general demurrer challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint on the ground it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)¿ A special demurrer challenges other defects in the complaint, including whether a pleading is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).)¿ The term uncertain means the pleading is “ambiguous and unintelligible.”¿ (Id.)¿ A demurrer for uncertainty should be sustained if the complaint is drafted in such a manner that the defendant cannot reasonably respond, i.e., the defendant cannot determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts are directed against the defendant. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)¿ 

Further, the court may, upon motion, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 436, subd. (a).)  The court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436, subd. (b).)  The grounds for moving to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437.) 

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.)  

MEET AND CONFER 

Code Civ. Proc. §§ 430.41 and 435.5 requires that before the filing of a demurrer or motion to strike, the moving party “shall meet and confer in person or by telephone” with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer or motion to strike for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer or motion to strike.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 430.41(a), 435.5(a).)  The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 430.41(a)(2), 435.5(a)(2).)  Thereafter, the moving party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 430.41(a)(3), 435.5(a)(3).)  Landlord submits the Declaration of Matthew Ames, which adequately shows counsel met and conferred by phone prior to bringing this demurrer and motion to strike. 

 

DISCUSSION 

Deceit 

Landlord argues that Tenant has failed to plead her claim of deceit with particularity.  The Court disagrees.   

The elements of fraud are (1) a misrepresentation, (2) scienter or knowledge of its falsity, (3) intent to induce reliance, (4) justifiable reliance and (5) resulting damage.  (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Ctr. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.)  The facts constituting the alleged fraud must be alleged factually and specifically as to every element of fraud.  (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.)  To properly allege fraud against a corporation, the plaintiff must plead the names of the persons who allegedly made the false representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.  (Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.)   

However, this rule of particularity¿must be applied differently in the case of non-disclosure because it is difficult to allege “who” or “how” or “by what means” something was not disclosed or “when” or “where” a statement was not made.  (Alfaro v. Community Housing Imp. System & Planning Ass’n, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384.)  Because of the nature of such fraud and that such facts supporting concealment are more likely to be known by a defendant,¿less particularity is required.  (Id.) 

Here, Tenant alleges non-disclosure – i.e., Landlord failed to disclose the habitability defects in the premises and that the premises were an illegal dwelling.  She also alleges Landlord had a duty to disclose, the omissions were intended to induce reliance, she justifiably relied, and she was damaged.  These allegations are sufficient to support a claim for deceit.   

Accordingly, the Court overrules the demurrer as to Tenant’s claim for deceit.   

Other Claims 

Landlord argues that the complaint is fatally uncertain because it is unclear which claims are being asserted against Landlord.  The Court disagrees. 

The complaint is on a judicial council form.  There are six different causes of action contained in the body of the complaint, and each has a check box next to it.  To the extent the box is checked, then Tenant is alleging that claim.  To the extent the boxes are not checked, it should be presumed Tenant is not bringing that claim.        

Motion to Strike 

Landlord moves to strike Tenant’s prayer for attorneys’ fees on the ground that Tenant is self-represented.  The Court agrees.   

A party who acts on its own behalf does not incur fees that another party is obligated to pay, and therefore a self-represented litigant is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees.  (Leiper v. Gallegos (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 284, 294.)   

Tenant cites to Mix v. Tumanjan Development Corp. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1318 in support of her attorneys’ fees claim.  That case holds that a self-represented party may recover attorneys’ fees if they hire an attorney to assist them in the litigation.  (Id. at 1325.)  However, the complaint contains no allegation to suggest that this is the case.   

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to strike Tenant’s prayer for attorneys’ fees.  

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s demurrer and GRANTS Defendant’s motion to strike.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: October 31, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court