Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 24STCV25832, Date: 2025-04-14 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.

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Grand Promenade, LP and GK Management Co., Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”)

This is a habitability case. On October 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed the complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (2) negligence; (3) negligent hiring; (4) breach of contract; (5) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (6) nuisance; (7) Business & Professions code § 17200; (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (9) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (10) fraudulent misrepresentation; (11) negligent misrepresentation; (12) violation of LAMC § 45.35; (13) violation of LACC § 8.52.130; (14) violation of Civil Code § 1940.2; and (15) retaliatory eviction.

On January 2, 2025, Defendants filed the instant demurrer (“Demurrer”) and motion to strike (the “Motion”). On April 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Demurrer (the “Opposition”). On April 4, 2025, Defendants field a reply (the “Reply”). The Motion to Strike is unopposed.

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747; see Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 430.10, subd. (e).)

To sufficiently allege a cause of action, a complaint must allege all the ultimate facts—that is, the facts needed to establish each element of the cause of action pleaded. (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 212, superseded by statute as stated in Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.) “[E]ach evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.)

In testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-67.) Courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228, disapproved on other grounds, Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158, 1162.) A demurrer, however, “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)

A demurrer for uncertainty lies where the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. (CCP, § 430.10, subd. (f).)

“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.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616, disapproved on other grounds in Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 46 [holding claims for unfair business practices need not be pled specifically, impliedly disapproving Khoury].) As a result, a special demurrer for uncertainty is not intended to reach failure to incorporate sufficient facts in the pleading but is directed only at uncertainty existing in the allegations already made. (People v. Taliaferro (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 822, 825, disapproved on other grounds in Jefferson v. J.E. French Co. (1960) 54 Cal.2d 717, 719-720 [statute of limitations question].)

Where a complaint is sufficient to state a cause of action and to apprise a defendant of issues he is to meet, it is not properly subject to a special demurrer for uncertainty. (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643 [“A special demurrer [for uncertainty] should be overruled where the allegations of the complaint are sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant of the issues which he is to meet”].)

Defendants demur to the entire Complaint on grounds that it does not distinguish between the two Defendants or attribute any specific conduct or knowledge to either of them. (Demurrer, p. 12:6-17.) Defendants also demur on grounds that Plaintiff fails to plead any facts about the alleged habitability issue or dangerous condition. (Demurrer, pp. 12:21-14:12.) Alternatively, Defendants demur to each cause of action on grounds that Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to allege each cause of action. (Demurrer, pp. 14:15-25:16.)

Upon review of the Complaint, it is both uncertain and fails to allege sufficient facts to constitute any of the alleged causes of action. The factual allegations contained in the Complaint are as follows: In 2022, a fire broke out at Plaintiff’s apartment complex and Defendants informed the tenants that they would cover the cost of temporary relocation. (Compl., ¶¶ 8-9.) Defendants issued 3-day notices to pay or quit, although no rent was due. (Compl., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff “received multiple harassing notices,” which he complained about, and as a result “lives in constant fear of being served with eviction notices.” (Compl., ¶¶ 11-13.)

The Complaint does not identify any specific conduct by the Defendants or their agents or representatives. There are no facts describing what the alleged habitability concern or dangerous or defective condition of the property is. There are no facts describing the alleged harassing conduct or what misrepresentations were made, or by whom. Each cause of action merely recites the legal elements of the claim without providing any factual allegations describing how the cause of action applies to this case. (Compl., ¶¶ 17-95.) Thus, the Complaint is insufficient to apprise Defendants of the issues which they are to meet and does not state facts sufficient to constitute any of the 15 alleged causes of action.

In the Opposition, Plaintiff conclusory states that the Complaint does state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and is not uncertain or ambiguous. (Opp., pp. 2:11-3:7.) Plaintiff does not, however, point to any actual facts alleged in the Complaint to support his argument.

The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (a) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (b) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (CCP § 436, subds. (a), (b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 [“Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded”].)

As the Demurrer has been sustained in its entirety, the Motion to Strike is MOOT.

Defendants Grand Promenade, LP and GK Management Co., Inc.’s 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