Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV00882, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00882    Hearing Date: September 30, 2022    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling
1875/1925 Century Park East Company v. Wohl, Case No. 22SMCV00882
Hearing date September 30, 2022
Defendant Wohl’s Demurrer to Complaint

Plaintiff landlord sued defendant commercial tenant for failure to pay rent and seeks declaratory relief regarding enforceability of City and County of Los Angeles COVID-19 rent moratoria. Defendant demurs.

Breach of Lease
Los Angeles County’s COVID-19 orders defer the collection of overdue rental payments, and Defendant’s rental payments are not due until January 31, 2023. See January 25, 2022, Los Angeles County Ordinance Sec. VI.

The current ordinance provides that if a commercial tenant with no more than 9 employees is unable to make monthly payments from March 4, 2020, through January 31, 2022, and seeks protection under the ordinance, the commercial tenant must provide a self-certification and notice of inability to pay rent. Id. at VI(B)(2)(a). Commercial tenants with no more than 9 employees have until January 31, 2023, to repay unpaid rent incurred from March 4, 2020, through January 31, 2022. Id. at VI(C)(2)(a).

There is no evidence nor is it apparent on the face of the complaint that defendant meets the requirements for the ordinances’ protections. The court can only consider the four corners of the pleading on demurrer. To the extent Defendant has such evidence, he may bring a dispositive motion. OVERRULED.

Declaratory Relief
Defendant argues this cause of action fails because Plaintiff failed to join the City and County of Los Angeles, necessary parties, since plaintiff asks the Court to declare the moratoria are unenforceable and preempted by state law.

A defendant can file a special demurrer on the grounds of misjoinder, failure to name a necessary or indispensable party.¿CCP 389. See Union Carbide Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 15, 19 [demurrer brought for nonjoinder of indispensable parties]; see also Van Zant v. Apple, Inc. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 965, 973.¿When the issue of joinder is raised by demurrer, the judge may only consider the operative pleadings.¿Van Zant, supra, 229 Cal.App.4th at 978.

The test for determining whether a party is indispensable is defined by Code of Civil Procedure section 389, whereby a court determines whether a third party is necessary, and then determines whether the action may proceed or must be dismissed (for failure to join the indispensable third party).¿A necessary party involves “[a] person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action … if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest.”¿Code Civ. Proc., §¿389, subds. (a)(1)-(a)(2)(ii).¿¿¿ 

The City and the County are necessary parties and must be joined. Complete relief cannot be accorded without the City or County because the ordinances Plaintiff is asking the Court to find unenforceable were enacted by the City and/or County. The City and County have a direct interest as to whether the ordinances they enacted are enforceable, and if they are not joined, they will be prevented from protecting their interest regarding the laws’ enforceability. To the extent the Court were to find the Ordinances unenforceable, the City and County run a substantial risk of incurring significant obligations due to persons’ or entities’ reliance on the Ordinances.

SUSTAINED with 20 days leave to amend and to join necessary parties.