Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV01654, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01654    Hearing Date: October 20, 2022    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling
Kare, LLC v. Rajinder
Saini, et al., Case No. 22SMCV01654
Hearing date October 20,
2022
Defendant Sadhvi Saini’s
Demurrer

Plaintiff landlord Kare, LLC alleges defendant tenants
Rajinder and Sadhvi Saini failed to pay $26,669.30 in back rent. Plaintiff
seeks possession, $296.98/day in fair market rent, costs, attorneys’ fees, and
prejudgment interest. On September 22, 2022, plaintiff filed this UD action. On
October 3, 2022, defendant Sadhvi Saini demurred, and defendant Rajinder Saini
moved to quash service of summons. On October 12, 2022, plaintiff filed
oppositions to both.

The hearings for both motions were scheduled on
November 2, 2022. On October 13, 2022, the court granted plaintiff’s ex parte application
to advance the hearing on the demurrer to October 20, 2022; the motion to quash
service remains on for November 2, 2022.

Defendant Sadhvi Saini argues the complaint is
defective because the 3-day notice to quit misstates the amount of past due rent
and miscalculates the fair market rent of the property.

Regarding unlawful detainer actions, “[o]n or before
the day fixed for his appearance, the defendant may appear and answer or
demur.” Code Civ. Proc. §1170. Unless stated otherwise, the rules for unlawful
detainer actions are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. See Id. §
1177. “A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts
alleged.” E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308,
1315. As such, the court “assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded
or implied factual allegations.” Id. The only issue a demurrer is concerned
with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. Hahn v.
Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.

Defendant argues plaintiff misstates the amount of
past due rent but provides no evidence to support this claim. The amount of
damages is a factual determination, and the court does not make factual
determinations on demurrer. It must assume all facts pled as true and looks
only to whether plaintiff states a cause of action. Plaintiff has done so.

Defendant also contends plaintiff miscalculates the
fair market daily rent of the property. Defendant notes the complaint lists the
fair market rental rate at $296.98 per day, which does not match the $8,603.00
monthly rental rate. Again, defendant provides no authority that such would
make the complaint subject to demurrer. When reviewing a demurrer, the court
only considers whether plaintiff stated a cause of action. Plaintiff has done
so here. OVERRULED. Defendant to answer within 5 days.