Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV04285, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV04285    Hearing Date: October 31, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Bosse v. Prado, Case no. 24SMCV04285

Hearing date October 31, 2024

Defendant’s Demurrer

Plaintiff landlord sues for failure to pay rent. Defendant, in pro per, demurs, arguing the complaint fails to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer and is procedurally defective.

“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 allege essential facts “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 Ass’n., Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099.

Plaintiff properly alleged a landlord-tenant relationship and failure to pay rent. Defendant asserts plaintiff failed to provide 3-day notice as required by Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1161(2) and fails to state a claim. Defendant asserts plaintiff did not attach a complete acknowledgement of receipt of service. Defendant’s assertions regarding Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1161(2)’s 3-day notice requirement are questions of fact inappropriate for demurrer. Plaintiff alleged proper service of a 3-day notice. Compl. para. 9. Plaintiff included a declaration of ervice. Compl. ex. 3. Whether notice was procedurally defective is a question of fact, which the court cannot determine on demurrer. OVERRULED. Defendant to answer within 5 days.