Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This is an unlawful detainer action.  The real property at issue is located at 1615 S. Westgate Ave #2, Los Angeles, California (the “Premises”).  Plaintiff 1615 Westgate LLC leased the Premises to Defendants Austin Grant and Jonah Brustein pursuant to a written lease agreement (“Lease”).  Defendants failed to pay rent.   

Plaintiff served a 3 day notice to pay rent or quit.  Defendants failed to comply with the notice.   

This hearing is on Defendants’ demurrer to the Complaint.  Defendants demur to the complaint on the ground there is no verification to the Complaint.   

MEET AND CONFER   

In¿unlawful detainer proceedings, there is¿no requirement that a demurring defendant¿meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading being demurred to.  (Code Civ. Proc., §430.41 (d),¿(d)(2)).  Accordingly, there is no consequence to Defendants not having sought to meet and confer with Plaintiff.    

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 

Defendants argue that a demurrer should be sustained because there is no verification to Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer complaint.  Not so.   

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §1166(a)(1), an unlawful detainer complaint must “be verified and include the typed or printed name of the person verifying the complaint.”  Here, the Complaint is verified by Diana Mandel who is the managing member for Plaintiff.  Her verification is sufficient to meet the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. §1166(a)(1).   

Therefore, the Court concludes there is no basis for the demurrer.   

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Defendants Austin Grant and Jonah Brustein’s demurrer to the Complaint.      

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: May 23, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court