Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV05128, Date: 2023-12-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05128    Hearing Date: December 18, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

SM 1000 Property LLC v. Leong et al., Case No. 23SMCV05128

Hearing Date December 18, 2023

Defendant Leong’s Demurrer to Plaintiff SM 1000’s Complaint

In this unlawful detainer action, landlord plaintiff SM 1000 alleges failure to pay rent of $12,157.92 due October 2023. Leong demurs.

If a plaintiff in a demurrer action does not strictly comply with the statutory notice standard, the unlawful detainer complaint is subject to demurrer. E.g. Barbara Parsons v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 6. A notice to pay rent or quit which overstates the rent due is ineffective. Ernst Enter, Inv. v. Sun Valley Gasoline, Inc. (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 355, 359.

Leong argues the complaint overstates the rent due, requesting $12,157.92 while stating Leong agreed to pay $11,500 per month.

SM 1000 objects that Leong failed to meet and confer before filing the demurrer. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §430.41(a). The demurrer does not include a meet and confer declaration as required under §430.41(a)(2). Nonetheless, “[a] determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer.” Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §430.41(a)(4). The court will consider the merits of the demurrer.

SM 1000 argues the lease states that in addition to the monthly rent of $11,500, Leong must pay monthly parking and technology fees, a total of $12,050 each month. Exhibit 1 ¶1 (C), (E), (H), and (I). The request for $12,157.92 is based on that sum plus prejudgment interest.

This explanation is not present in the complaint, which states that Leong agreed to pay rent of $11,500 and requests prejudgment interest but does not clarify that the parking/technology fees make up part of the allegedly past-due $12,157.92.

"Unlawful detainer is a highly specialized form of litigation. Highly summary in nature, the code requirements must be followed strictly, otherwise a landlord's remedy is an ordinary suit for breach of contract with all the delays that that remedy normally involves and without restitution of the demised property." Cal-American Income Property Fund IV. v. Ho (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 583, 585. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. 1161.

SM 1000 failed to adhere to the strict requirements under the unlawful detainer statutes, and incorrectly stated the amount due. The complaint is fatally defective under Parsons and Ernst Enter and cannot be cured by amendment. SUSTAINED without leave to amend.