Judge Gail Killefer, Case 20STCV37827 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling

OPPOSING PARTIES: Plaintiffs, Luz Ramos; Samot Rodriguez; Katiana Rodriguez; Noel Ramos, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Katiana Rodriguez and Katiana Adeline Ramos, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Katiana Rodriguez

TENTATIVE: Defendant’s demurrer is sustained. Plaintiffs are granted 30 days leave to amend. Defendant is to give notice.

This is a habitability action arising out of the residency of Luz Ramos, Samot Rodriguez, Katiana Rodriguez, Noel Ramos, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Katiana Rodriguez, and Katiana Adeline Ramos, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Katiana Rodriguez (“Plaintiffs”) at 1800 E. 85th St., Unit E, Los Angeles, California 90001 (the “Rental Unit”). Plaintiffs bring this action against Immanuel Housing, Inc. (“Defendant”), which is alleged to be the manager/owner of the Rental Unit and Subject Property.

Plaintiffs allege that throughout their residency at the Rental Unit, uninhabitable conditions existed in the Rental Unit, such as a gas leak from the heating unit, lack of heating, and malfunctioning smoke and carbon monoxide detectors.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges six causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability, (3) nuisance, (4)breach of implied covenant of quiet use and enjoyment, (5) negligent violation of statutory duty, and (6) intentional violation of statutory duty.

Defendant now demurs to all causes of action of the Complaint. Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

Defendant requests judicial notice of the following in support of their demurrer:

1. Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Number 18 STUD 08827 Imanuel Housing, Inc. v. Luz Ramos, Kathina Rodriguez, Samot Rodriguez, namely the Complaint and attachments of August 17, 2018, and the Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment filed on September 27, 2018. (Exhibit A).

Defendant’s request is granted. The existence and legal significance of these documents is proper matters for judicial notice. (Evid. Code § 452(d), (h).)

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (CCP § 430.30(a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) The court “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. . . .” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525 (Berkley).) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (CCP § 452; see also Stevens v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.) “When a court evaluates a complaint, the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable inferences from the facts pled.” (Duval v. Board of Trustees (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 902, 906.)

The general rule is that the plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts. (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550.) “All that is required of a plaintiff, as a matter of pleading, even as against a special demurrer, is that his complaint set forth the essential facts of the case with reasonable precision and with sufficient particularity to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action.” (Rannard v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 149, 156-157.) “[D]emurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Ins. Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 848, fn. 3, citing Lickiss v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.) In addition, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, courts strictly construe a demurrer for uncertainty “because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

Demurrers do not lie as to only parts of causes of action where some valid claim is alleged but “must dispose of an entire cause of action to be sustained.” (Poizner v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.) “Generally it is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.” (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.

A cause of action for breach of contract consists of the following elements: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) the defendant’s breach; and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff. (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.) “The essence of a contract is the meeting of minds on the essential features of the agreement.” (Krasley v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 425, 431.) A contract “is unenforceable if the parties fail to agree on a material term or if a material term is not reasonably certain.” (Lindsay v. Lewandowski (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1618, 1623.)

A written contract must be pled verbatim in the body of the complaint, be attached to the complaint and incorporated by reference, or be pled according to its legal effect. (Bowden v. Robinson (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 705, 718.) An allegation of an oral agreement must “set[] forth the substance of its relative terms.” (Gautier v. General Tel. Co. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 302, 305.)

Defendant contends the first cause of action, and the entire Complaint as a result, are “inherently uncertain” since paragraph 9 and 19 of the Complaint allege written lease agreements for different periods of time. (Dem., 4.) Defendant further points to the related Unlawful Detainer (“UD”) action (18STUD08827) to argue “Plaintiffs have admitted in the U.D. Stipulation and Judgment that they failed to pay the rent for the months of June and July 2018, and thereafter.” (Dem., 6, RJN Exh. A.) In the UD Stipulation and Judgment, Plaintiffs also agreed to vacate the Property by October 31, 2018. Defendant argues Plaintiffs therefore fail to establish a breach of contract claim through their pleadings since the pleadings fail to show the second element: performance or excuse for nonperformance. (Id.)

“ 9. Plaintiffs' tenancy at Immanuel Housing, Inc. unit " ("Premises") began Aug 8, 2017 and ended October 31, 2018.

19. Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a written lease agreement on Aug. 3, 2017 for the rent for hire of the Premises for a period ending Sep. 1, 2019. Plaintiff promised to pay rent in exchange for right to possession.” (Complaint ¶¶9, 19.)

Defendant thus argues that since these paragraphs “are incorporated into each and every Cause of Action,” “this renders the entire Complaint and each of cause of actin [sic] therein inherently uncertain.” (Dem., 4-6.) The court disagrees.

Defendant fails to explain how the use of different terms—“tenancy” and “written lease agreement”—creates a fatally uncertain pleading. "A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures." (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) "A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond--i.e., he or she cannot reasonable determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her." (Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group) § 7:85 (emphasis in original).) Defendant fails to meet this high burden of showing that the entire Complaint is uncertain.

However, the court agrees with Defendant that the UD Stipulation and Judgment, introduced here as RJN Exhibit A, shows Plaintiffs had judgment entered against them for $2,154.00 in “Past Due Rent,” therefore concluding Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to establish their performance or excuse for nonperformance, the second element of a breach of contract claim. Thus, the court finds the first cause of action to be insufficiently pled.

The court also notes that Plaintiffs in this action filed an Answer in the related UD action (action (18STUD08827) that assert affirmative defenses that they have now pled in this Complaint, such as breach of warranty of habitability, violation of certain statutory duties, and breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment. As noted above, Plaintiffs settled the related case in 2018.

Defendant’s demurrer is sustained. Plaintiffs are granted 30 days leave to amend. Defendant is to give notice.

[1] Defendant submits the declaration of its counsel, Frank H. Whitehead III (“Whitehead”) to demonstrate that they have fulfilled their statutory meet and confer obligations prior to filing the instant motions. Whitehead attests that on January 17, 2023, Defense counsel telephoned Plaintiffs’ counsel and sent Plaintiffs a meet and confer letter addressing the arguments raised in the instant demurrer and requesting that Plaintiffs’ counsel contact Defense counsel to meet and confer telephonically. (Whitehead Decl. ¶¶ 4-6, Exh. B-D.) According to Whitehead, Plaintiffs’ counsel have not responded. (Whitehead Decl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs do not object that Defendant has failed to meet and confer. Thus, although the court ordinarily expects that the parties meet and confer telephonically prior to filing a demurrer, the court finds that the Whitehead Declaration is sufficient for purposes of CCP §§ 430.41 and 435.5.