Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV26314, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV26314    Hearing Date: January 31, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Daniel Bedoya (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

The Court has considered the moving and opposition papers.  No reply papers were filed.  Any reply papers were required to have been filed and served at least five court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

            On October 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging unlawful detainer.

On December 27, 2023, Moving Defendant filed a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) on the ground that the Complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

            The Demurrer does not include evidence that the meet and confer requirement has been satisfied.  Nonetheless, since the failure to meet and confer is not a basis for overruling a demurrer, the Court will consider the arguments raised in the Demurrer.  (See CCP § 430.41, subd. (a)(4).)

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.)  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.) 

Unlawful Detainer

Under CCP section 1161, subdivision (2), a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer when the tenant continues in possession, in person or by subtenant, without the permission of the landlord, or the successor in estate of the landlord, if applicable, after default in the payment of rent, pursuant to the lease or agreement under which the property is held, and three days' notice, excluding Saturdays and Sundays and other judicial holidays, in writing, requiring its payment, stating the amount that is due, the name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent payment shall be made, and, if payment may be made personally, the usual days and hours that person will be available to receive the payment (provided that, if the address does not allow for personal delivery, then it shall be conclusively presumed that upon the mailing of any rent or notice to the owner by the tenant to the name and address provided, the notice or rent is deemed received by the owner on the date posted, if the tenant can show proof of mailing to the name and address provided by the owner), or the number of an account in a financial institution into which the rental payment may be made, and the name and street address of the institution (provided that the institution is located within five miles of the rental property), or if an electronic funds transfer procedure has been previously established, that payment may be made pursuant to that procedure, or possession of the property, shall have been served upon the tenant and if there is a subtenant in actual occupation of the premises, also upon the subtenant.  (CCP § 1161, subd. (2).)

The Demurrer argues that the Complaint fails to sufficiently allege the existence of a valid lease agreement.  The Court is not persuaded by this argument—the Complaint, which was filed on an unlawful detailer form pleading, alleges the existence of a lease agreement.  A factual dispute over the validity of the lease agreement is a factual issue beyond the scope of the court’s review of the Demurrer.  The Court therefore OVERRULES the Demurrer.  Moving Defendant is ordered to file and serve a responsive pleading within 20 days of the date of this order.

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 31st day of January 2024