Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 21STCV06450, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

Case Number: 21STCV06450    Hearing Date: February 1, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Estate of George E. Gutierrez, Deceased (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs

The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship.  Plaintiffs’ complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (2) breach of statutory warranty of habitability; (3) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) negligence; (5) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4; and (6) private nuisance.

On December 5, 2023, Moving Defendant filed a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) to the second and sixth causes of action on the grounds that the Complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain.

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

The meet and confer requirement has been met.

Legal Standard

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law.  (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)  The court accepts as true all material factual allegations and affords them a liberal construction, but it does not consider conclusions of fact or law, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or judicially noticed facts.  (Shea Homes Limited Partnership v. County of Alameda (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1254.)  With respect to a demurrer, the complaint must be construed liberally by drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded.  (Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517.)  Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored.  (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822.)  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.  (Id.)  A demurrer will be sustained without leave to amend if there exists no reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.  (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) 

Second Cause of Action: Breach of Statutory Duty of Habitability

Under Civil Code section 1941, the lessor of a building intended for the occupation of human beings must, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, put it into a condition fit for such occupation, and repair all subsequent dilapidations thereof, which render it untenantable.  (Civ. Code § 1941.)

The second cause of action alleges that Defendants breached the warranty of habitability set forth under Civil Code section 1941 by failing to ensure that the building complied with the requirements enumerated in Civil Code section 1941.1 and Health and Safety Code section 17290.3.  (See Complaint ¶ 14.)

Moving Defendant argues that the second cause of action is insufficient because Civil Code sections 1941 and 1041.1 and Health and Safety Code section 17290.3. do not provide for a private right of action, and the claim is otherwise duplicative of the negligence and violation of Civil Code section 1942.4 causes of action.  The Court agrees.  Civil Code section 1942.4 establishes the framework for redress for violations of the habitability conditions listed in Civil Code section 1941.1 and Health and Safety Code section 17290.3.  (See Civ. Code § 1942.4.)  The Court therefore SUSTAINS the Demurrer to the second cause of action with 20 days leave to amend.

Sixth Cause of Action: Private Nuisance

Anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a nuisance.  (Civ. Code § 3479.)  To state a claim for private nuisance, the plaintiff must allege: (1) interference with his land or property; (2) substantial actual damage which is (3) unreasonable as to its nature, duration or amount.  (San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 893, 937-38.)

Moving Defendant argues that the nuisance claim is redundant to the negligence claim.  Plaintiffs concede this argument.  The Court therefore SUSTAINS the Demurrer to the sixth cause of action without leave to amend.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

  Dated this 1st day of February 2024