Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV01112, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01112    Hearing Date: March 24, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

DEMURRER

ALLEGATIONS: 

On December 1, 2022, 27th/Pico Boulevard II Limited Partnership (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Anthony Guerrero (“Defendant”). The Complaint alleges unlawful detainer of a property located at 6750 Clybourn Avenue, #216, North Hollywood, California. Defendant, in pro per, now demurs to the Complaint on grounds the three-day notice to quit did not contain certain disclosures.

HISTORY: 

On January 9, 2023, Defendant filed his Demurrer. On March 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed their opposition. No reply was filed.

Plaintiff gave notice in the Opposition they will not appear at the law and motion hearing and submits the matter with an appearance pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1304(c).

ANALYSIS: 

I.                LEGAL STANDARD 

The grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters.  (C.C.P. § 430.30(a); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 311, 318.) A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Ibid.)

A demurrer assumes the truth of all factual, material allegations properly pled in the challenged pleading. (Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 318.) No matter how unlikely or improbable, the plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.  App. 3d 593, 604.) However, this does not include contentions; deductions; conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice.  (Blank, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 318.)

Pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 430.10(e) and (f), the party against whom a complaint has been filed may demur to the pleading on the grounds that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or that the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous and, or unintelligible. It is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is a reasonable probability that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 1074, 1082.)

II.              MEET AND CONFER

C.C.P. § 430.41(a) requires that the demurring party meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the demurrer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due, by telephone or in person, for the purpose of determining if the parties can resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. The demurring party must file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts.

Upon review of the record, the Court finds no declaration of an attempt to meet and confer. Regardless, failure to meet and confer is not grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer or grant or deny a motion to strike. (C.C.P. §§ 430.41(a)(4); CCP 435.5(a)(4).)  Defendant is admonished to comply with all meet and confer requirements mandated by the Code of Civil Procedure and Rules of Court.

III.            MERITS

Defendant demurrers to the complaint on grounds that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Demurrer pg. 3.) However, Defendant’s sole argument in his memorandum is that the three-day notice to quit did not contain proper disclosures. The Court finds this argument has no bearing on the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Further, consideration of disclosures made on the three-day notice to quit falls outside the face of the pleading or judicially noticeable matters. Defendant offers no arguments supporting his claim that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state sufficient facts. As such, the Court OVERRULES the demurrer.

Further, the Court finds the three-day notice contained the necessary disclosures.  C.C.P. § 1179.10(a)(2)(C) requires the following disclosure for notices issues before April 1, 2022:

“IMPORTANT NOTICE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA – YOU MUST TAKE ACTION TO AVOID AN EVICTION: As part of the state’s COVID-19 relief plan, money has been set aside to help renters who have fallen behind on rent or utility payments.

If you cannot pay the amount demanded in this notice, YOU SHOULD COMPLETE A RENTAL ASSISTANCE APPLICATION IMMEDIATELY! It is free and simple to apply. Citizenship or immigration status does not matter.

DO NOT DELAY! IF YOU DO NOT COMPLETE YOUR APPLICATION FOR RENTAL ASSISTANCE WITHIN 15 BUSINESS DAYS, YOUR LANDLORD MAY BE ABLE TO SUE TO OBTAIN A COURT ORDER FOR YOUR EVICTION.

You can start your application by calling 1-833-430-2122 or visiting http://housingiskey.com.”

C.C.P § 1179.10(b) requires the following disclosure for notices issued after April 1, 2022 and before July 1, 2022:

“NOTICE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:

If you completed an application for government rental assistance on or before March 31, 2022, you may have protections against eviction. For information about legal resources that may be available to you, visit lawhelpca.org.”

On September 1, 2022, Defendant was served with the three-day notice. Defendant claims the disclosures lacking are those that appear in C.C.P § 1179.10(b). However, the notice was not served upon him between April 1, 2022 and July 1, 2022. The Court finds that the required disclosures were made.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Anthony Guerrero’s Demurrer came on regularly for hearing on March 24, 2023, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.  DEFENDANT HAS FIVE DAYS TO FILE AN ANSWER.

CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  March 24, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles