Judge Gary Y. Tanaka, Case 22STCV17693 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Thursday, May 4, 2023

Department B Calendar No. 7

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on May 27, 2022. Plaintiffs allege the following facts. Plaintiffs were tenants at 4118 Redondo Beach Boulevard, Apt. A, Torrance, California 90504. The property is owned by Defendants. Defendants failed to remedy certain habitability conditions within the rental property which led to Plaintiffs suffering personal injuries. Plaintiffs allege damages for 1. Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; 3. Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; 3. Negligence.

Defendants filed a meet and confer declaration in sufficient compliance with both CCP § 430.41. (Decl., Andrew Cho, ¶¶ 3-6).

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.) In testing the sufficiency of the complaint, the court must assume the truth of (1) the properly pleaded factual allegations; (2) facts that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded; and (3) judicially noticed matters. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The Court may not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.App.4th 634, 638.) Because a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the plaintiff must show that the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer. (C.C.P., § 430.10(e); Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1126.)

Sufficient facts are the essential facts of the case "with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of his cause of action.” (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.) "Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant to ruling upon the demurrer." (Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 609–610.) Under Code Civil Procedure § 430.10(f), a demurrer may also be sustained if a complaint is “uncertain.” Uncertainty exists where a complaint’s factual allegations are so confusing they do not sufficiently apprise a defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

Defendants demur to the entire First Amended Complaint and each cause of action on the grounds that the causes of action fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and are uncertain. CCP § 430.10(e); CCP § 430.10(f).

Defendants’ demurrer to the first cause of action is overruled. Plaintiffs state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and the cause of action is not uncertain.

“The elements of a cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability are the existence of a material defective condition affecting the premises' habitability, notice to the landlord of the condition within a reasonable time after the tenant's discovery of the condition, the landlord was given a reasonable time to correct the deficiency, and resulting damages.” Peviani v. Arbors at California Oaks Property Owner, LLC (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 874, 891.

Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to meet each of the elements of the cause of action. (FAC, ¶¶ 17-42.) Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not alleged specific facts as to when the problems occurred, what times they occurred, and the exact date that Defendants were notified of the conditions. Defendants are attempting to impose an extremely heightened pleading standard that does not exist when attempting to plead this cause of action. The type of specificity attempted to be imposed by Defendants are similar to (if not more heightened) than the standard required to plead fraud. Plaintiffs are not required to plead specific facts to state this cause of action.

Defendants’ demurrer to the second cause of action is overruled. Plaintiffs state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and the cause of action is not uncertain.

“[E]very lease contains an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, whereby the landlord impliedly covenants that the tenant shall have quiet enjoyment and possession of the premises. The covenant of quiet enjoyment insulates the tenant against any act or omission on the part of the landlord, or anyone claiming under him, which interferes with a tenants right to use and enjoy the premises for the purposes contemplated by the tenancy. [...] To be actionable, the landlords act or omission must substantially interfere with a tenants (sic) right to use and enjoy the premises for the purposes contemplated by the tenancy.” Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 578, 588–89 (internal citations and quotations omitted; emphasis in original).

Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to meet each of the elements of the cause of action. (FAC, ¶¶ 17-28; 43-49.) Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not alleged specific facts as to when the problems occurred, what times they occurred, and the exact date that Defendants were notified of the conditions. As noted above, Defendants are attempting to impose an extremely heightened pleading standard that does not exist when attempting to plead this cause of action. The type of specificity attempted to be imposed by Defendants are similar to (if not more heightened) than the standard required to plead fraud. Plaintiffs are not required to plead specific facts to state this cause of action.

The demurrer to the third cause of action is overruled. Plaintiffs state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and the cause of action is not uncertain.

“To state a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must allege (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, (2) the defendant breached that duty, and (3) the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's damages or injuries.” Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 62.

Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to meet each of the elements of the cause of action. (FAC, ¶¶ 17-28; 50-55.) Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not alleged specific facts as to when the problems occurred, what times they occurred, and the exact date that Defendants were notified of the conditions. Again, Defendants are attempting to impose an extremely heightened pleading standard that does not exist when attempting to plead this cause of action. The type of specificity attempted to be imposed by Defendants are similar to (if not more heightened) than the standard required to plead fraud. Plaintiffs are not required to plead specific facts to state this cause of action.

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is overruled. The type of specific facts sought by Defendants can be obtained through the discovery process.