Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV04386, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04386    Hearing Date: October 5, 2022    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Jamshid Barmaan (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

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

BACKGROUND

            This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship.  Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

In relevant part, the Complaint alleges: Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (the “Lease Agreement”) with Moving Defendant to rent property (the “Property”) in around 2015.  (Complaint ¶ 5.)  Pursuant to the Lease Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to make monthly rent payments.  (Id.)  At around the end of 2017, Plaintiff was badly injured in a car accident.  (Complaint ¶ 7.)  Plaintiff thereafter went to Iran to obtain medical treatment and heal from the injuries he sustained in the car accident.  (Complaint ¶ 8.)  Moving Defendant informed Plaintiff that he would not need to pay rent while he was in Iran rehabilitating and until he reached a legal settlement relating to the accident.  (See Complaint ¶ 9.)  In around April 2018, Plaintiff returned to the Property and learned that Moving Defendant had removed his personal property, including cash in the amount of at least $10,000 and furniture.  (Complaint ¶ 10.)  Also in April 2018, Moving Defendant entered the Property and threatened Plaintiff with a knife, forcing Plaintiff to sign a document relinquishing his rights to the Property.  (Complaint ¶ 12.) 

Moving Defendant filed a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) to the Complaint on the grounds that it fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain.  Moving Defendant also filed a motion to strike (the “Motion”), which seeks to strike allegations concerning damages.

DEMURRER

Meet and Confer

The meet and confer requirement has been met with respect to both the Demurrer and Motion.

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.) 

Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”)

The UCL prohibits unfair competition, including unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts.  (Feitelberg v. Credit Suisse First Boston, LLC. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 997, 1008-09.)  To show a violation of the UCL, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury; and (2) show that that economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice or false advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.  (Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 322.)  A business act or practice only needs to meet one of the requirements to be considered unfair competition under the UCL.  (Daro v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1093.)  Statutory causes of action must be alleged with particularity.  (Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795.) 

The Court finds that the Complaint fails to adequately allege a claim for a UCL violation as it does not identify the source of the unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practice.  It does not allege any particular statutory violation or common law cause of action that underlies the UCL cause of action. 

The Court therefore SUSTAINS the Demurrer in its entirety with 20 days leave to amend.

MOTION TO STRIKE

Legal Standard

A motion to strike either: (1) strikes any irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strikes any pleading or part thereof not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of court.  (CCP § 436.)

            In light of the Court’s ruling on the Demurrer, the Motion is MOOT.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

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 5th day of October 2022