Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 24STCV07265, Date: 2024-05-28 Tentative Ruling

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition has been received by the Court.

This is an action for unlawful detainer. On March 22, 2024, Plaintiff Naomi Ortega (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against Defendant Rosa A. Trujillo (“Defendant”). The complaint alleges that Defendant entered into a lease agreement with Plaintiff since March 1, 2017 in connection with the residential property located at 734 E. 42nd Place, Los Angeles, CA 90011. The complaint further alleges that the tenancy was terminated for at-fault just cause.

On March 27, 2024, Defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint. No opposition has been received.

Because no declaration has been attached to the instant demurrer, the Court finds that the meet and confer requirement has not been met. Nonetheless, the Court will proceed to address the merits of the demurrer despite this deficiency. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 430.41(a)(4).) The Court admonishes the parties to abide by the requirements set forth in the Code in future matters.

“A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law.” (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.) “[T]he court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded.” (Id.) “The court accepts as true all material factual allegations, giving 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.) In the demurrer context a court “may also take notice of exhibits attached to the complain[t].” (Holland v. Morse Diesel Intern., Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1447.) “If facts appearing in the exhibits contradict those alleged, the facts in the exhibits take precedence.” (Id.)

Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to strictly comply with all the statutory requirements necessary to bring an unlawful detainer action. (Demurrer at pg. 2, relying on Jordan v. Talbot (1961) 55 Cal.2d 597 and Borsuk v. Appellate Div. of Sup. Ct. (2015) 202 Cal.App.4th 607.) In particular, Defendant points out that Sections 9 and 10 of the form complaint have not been filled out, and thus, she asserts that Plaintiff has not made any allegation concerning the service of the 3 day notice to pay rent or quit. (Demurrer at pg. 2.) Additionally, Defendant contends that the proof of service of the 3-day notice to pay or quit was not attached to the complaint.

Upon review of the complaint, the Court finds that Defendant’s first argument has merit. Because Plaintiff must strictly comply with the statutory notice requirement set forth under Code of Civil Procedure § 1161, facts must be alleged to show that Plaintiff has adhered to that requirement. (Borsuk v. Appellate Div. of Sup. Ct. (2015) 202 Cal.App.4th 607, 610, fn. 1.) Because the complaint is devoid of any facts to show that Plaintiff complied with the statutory notice requirement, it has not been sufficiently alleged. Thus, on this ground, the demurrer is sustained.

As to Defendant’s second argument that a proof of service was not attached to the complaint, this argument is unsupported. Based on the complaint filed with the Court, a proof of service of the 3-day notice to pay or quit is attached as the last page of Exhibit 2. While the complaint did not separately include an Exhibit 3, the required proof of service is there. Therefore, the demurrer is overruled on this ground.

Based on the foregoing, because sufficient facts have not been alleged regarding Plaintiff’s compliance with the statutory notice requirements, the Court sustains the instant demurrer is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court