Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV25635, Date: 2024-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25635    Hearing Date: March 18, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

BACKROUND

Plaintiff Mural Media, LLC 401K Plan (“Plaintiff”) filed a verified complaint for unlawful detainer on October 20, 2023 against Defendants Linda J. Maultsby (“Maultsby”), All Unknown Occupants, Tenants, and Subtenants, and Does 1 through 25.

On January 31, 2024, Maultsby filed the instant demurrer without motion to strike. On February 5, 2024, Maultsby filed a request for judicial notice.

On February 13, 2024, the Court denied Maultsby’s motion to transfer venue without prejudice.

On February 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the demurrer.

On March 11, 2024, Maultsby filed a reply.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Maultsby requests that the Court take judicial notice of the unlawful detainer complaint filed September 1, 2023 in Mural Media, LLC 401K Plan v. Maultsby (23STCV21446). (RJN, Exh. A.)

Maultsby’s request is GRANTED, as Exhibit A is a record of the courts of this state.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of the pleading at issue as a matter of law. (City of Chula Vista v. County of San Diego (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1713, 1719.) A demurrer may be sustained where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (CCP § 430.10(e).) The ultimate facts alleged in the complaint must be deemed true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. (Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403; see also Shields v. County of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 103, 133 [“On demurrer, pleadings are read liberally and allegations contained therein are assumed to be true.”]) However, the Court does not assume the truth of allegations expressing conclusions of law or allegations contradicted by the exhibits to the complaint or by matters of which judicial notice may be taken. (Vance v. Villa Park Mobilehome Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 698, 709.)   

Additionally, a special demurrer to a complaint may be brought on the ground the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. (CCP § 430.10(f); Beresford Neighborhood Assn. v. City of San Mateo (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1180, 1191.) A demurrer based on uncertainty is disfavored and will be strictly construed even when the pleading is uncertain in some respects. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrer for uncertainty may be sustained when a defendant cannot reasonably determine to what he or she is required to respond. For example, when a plaintiff joins multiple causes of action as one, fails to properly identify each cause of action, or fails to state against which party each cause of action is asserted if there are multiple defendants, a complaint is uncertain. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.) 

If the demurrer is sustained, plaintiff “has the burden of proving the possibility of cure by amendment.” (Czajkowski v. Haskell & White, LLP (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 166, 173 [citing Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 72, 78-79.]) Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successfully stating a cause of action. (Schulz v. Neovi Data Corp. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 86, 92.) 

DISCUSSION

Maultsby demurs to the complaint on the grounds that 1) there is another action pending between the Plaintiff and Defendant on the same cause of action, 2) Plaintiff does not have legal capacity to sue, 3) the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain, and 4) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Maultsby was not served with any of the pre-requisite notices to quit and the pre-requisite notice is fatally defective on its face. The Court finds that demurrer is appropriate based on the fact there is another action pending between the parties based on the same causes of action.

Maultsby contends Plaintiff filed a separate unlawful detainer action against Maultsby based on the same dwelling (5109 Westhaven St., Los Angeles, CA 90016) and the same notice to vacate premises from August 24, 2023. Maultsby contends that this action is still pending.

The demurrer statutes provide that demurrer may be sustained on the grounds that there is another action pending on the same cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (c).)

Here, the action in 23STCV21446 is between the same parties, is also for unlawful detainer, and seeks identical relief in the prayer for relief. Therefore, § 430.10, subd. (c) applies. Maultsby’s demurrer is therefore SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

       Dated this 18th day of March 2024