Judge Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case Number: 24SMCV05690, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 24SMCV05690, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

STEPHEN DONELL,

Plaintiff,

METICULOUS SERVICES, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 24SMCV05690

Hearing Date: January 23, 2025

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

DEFENDANT’s DEMURRER TO

FIRST AMENDED complaint

This is an unlawful detainer action. Plaintiff Stephen J. Donell is a court-appointed receiver who was granted authority “to take possession, custody and control” of the property located at 1775 Beloit Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90025 (the “Property”). As the receiver, Plaintiff has authority to “… prosecute all Property actions for the (i) collection of rents derived from the property; (ii) removal from the property of persons not entitled to entry thereon…; and (v) recovery of possession of the Property.” Defendant Meticulous Services, LLC leases several units at the Property (the “Leases”). Plaintiff alleges Defendant has been running an illegal and unauthorized short term rental business.

Plaintiff issued notices of termination of the Leases on September 18, 2024, which under the terms of the Leases, terminated the Leases within 30 days. Defendant continues in possession of the units. Plaintiff seeks the reasonable rental value of the units which is $59,385 per month, or $1,979.50 per day. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on the ground Defendant has willfully withheld possession of the units, knowing that such continued possession is without legal right or justification.

This hearing is on Defendant’s demurrer to the first amended complaint (“FAC”). Defendant argues that the units that are the subject of the unlawful detainer action are subject to the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (“LARSO”), and therefore just cause for eviction would have been required, and Plaintiff’s notice failed to identify just cause. Further, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to meet a condition precedent in the Leases requiring Plaintiff to mediate any dispute with Defendant before filing a legal action. There was no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant asks the Court to take judicial notice that the units are subject to LARSO. The Court grants the request pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code §§ 452(h) and 453.

“[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.)

There is no requirement to meet and confer on a demurrer in an unlawful detainer action. There is therefore no consequence to Defendant having failed to file a declaration detailing meet and confer efforts.

No¿opposition¿was filed.¿Thus, Plaintiff effectively¿concedes¿all¿arguments¿made in the demurrer. The failure to challenge a contention in a brief results in the concession of that argument.¿(DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sup. Ct.¿(2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 562, 566¿(“By failing to argue the contrary, plaintiffs concede this issue.”);¿Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 23, Inc.¿(1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 507, 529¿(“failure to address the threshold question ... effectively concedes that issue and renders its remaining arguments moot”);¿Glendale Redevelopment Agency v. Parks¿(1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1424¿(issue is impliedly conceded by failing to address it).) Moreover, because there was no opposition, Plaintiff has not shown he can successfully amend the FAC to address the deficiencies noted in the demurrer. Accordingly, the Court sustains the demurrer without leave to amend.