Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 24SMCV00096, Date: 2024-06-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV00096, Date: 2024-06-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00096 Hearing Date: June 24, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Jensen v. Jarmakani, et al., Case No. 24SMCV00096

Hearing date June 24, 2024

Defendants Jarmakani’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike
Defendant Jarmakani Investment Holdings, LLC’s Demurrer

Plaintiff tenant sues defendant landlords Jarmakani, individually and as trustees of the Jarmakani Family Trust, and Jarmakani Investment Holdings, LLC for fraudulently concealing the fact that the home he rented from defendant landlords was subject to Santa Monica’s rent control ordinance.

Plaintiff leased the property in 1993 for $2,500 per month; defendants raised the rent over the years, and by May 2023 were charging $10,300 per month. Plaintiff alleges defendants falsely and improperly designated the property with the City as “owner occupied,” so the Santa Monica Rent Control Board would not send letters to plaintiff at the property indicating the property was subject to rent control. In December 2023 or January 2024 plaintiff discovered the property was subject to rent control. Plaintiff alleges he was overcharged by approximately $946,102 due to defendants’ allegedly fraudulent actions.

Plaintiff alleged: violations of SMRCCA sections 1801 and 1809; negligence; fraud (intentional misrepresentation); concealment, and unfair business practices (B&P §17200).

Defendants Jarmakani individually and the LLC file substantially identical demurrers to the fraud cause of action, which the court addresses collectively. Individual defendants also move to strike the second cause of action as being duplicative of the first.

Demurrers

“The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law.” Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1420. A complaint “is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts” (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550, but plaintiff must set forth the essential facts of the case “with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint [the] defendant with the nature, source and extent” of the plaintiff’s claim. Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099. In reviewing the legal sufficiency of a complaint against a demurrer, a court will treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; C & H Foods Co. v. Hartford Ins. Co. (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 1055, 1062.

“The elements of fraud are (a) a misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) scienter or knowledge of its falsity; (c) intent to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Ctr. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.

Defendants argue the FAC does not allege that defendants made a particular (mis)representation to plaintiff, nor does it allege when, where, to whom, and by what means the representation was tendered.

Plaintiff alleges the property was subject to rent control. FAC ¶13. He alleges in August 1993, defendants filed a fraudulent Fee Waiver Application (FAC ¶17, 65) which caused the City to cease sending information regarding rent control to the property (which plaintiff would have received). FAC ¶18, 65. As a result of defendants’ fraudulent misrepresentations, plaintiff alleges he was overcharged rent. These allegations are sufficiently specific to establish the elements for fraud and intentional misrepresentation. OVERRULED. Defendants to answer within 15 court days.

Motion to Strike Second Cause of Action

To the extent defendants move to strike the second cause of action as duplicative of the first cause of action, the motion is improperly brought. Motions to strike will only lie as to specific allegations or prayers for relief, not entire causes of action. “[I]t is improper for a court to strike a whole cause of action of a pleading under Code of Civil Procedure section 436. […] While under section 436, a court at any time may, in its discretion, strike portions of a complaint that are irrelevant, improper, or not drawn in conformity with the law, matter that is essential to a cause of action should not be struck and it is error to do so. [Citation.] Where a whole cause of action is the proper subject of a pleading challenge, the court should sustain a demurrer to the cause of action rather than grant a motion to strike.” Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Center (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1281.

That the cause of action may be duplicative is immaterial. Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to support both the first and second causes of action. The two causes of action state alternative theories based on two separate statutory bases. A plaintiff is entitled to plead alternative theories of recovery, absent some legal bar specific to a given theory. See Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 858, 889-890. DENIED.