Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 23STCV06098, Date: 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV06098 Hearing Date: April 19, 2023 Dept: 30
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 78
HYUN SOOK LEE,
Plaintiff;
vs.
YOUNG HYO KIM,
Defendant. Case No.: 23STCV06098
Hearing Date: April 19, 2023
[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:
DEFENDANT YOUNG HYO KIM’S DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT.
Defendant Young Hyo Kim’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This is an action for unlawful detainer. The Complaint alleges as follows.
Plaintiff Hyun Sook Lee (“Plaintiff”) owns real property located at 3223 W. 6th St., Los Angeles, CA 90020. (Compl. at p. 1.) Defendant Young Hyo Kim (“Kim”) agreed to rent a unit in the subject property for $3,800.00 a month. (Ibid.) Kim’s tenancy was terminated for cause. (Compl. at p. 2.) Plaintiff personally served Kim with a copy of the 3-day notice to pay rent or quit on March 14, 2023. (Ibid.) Kim currently owes past due rent in the amount of $45,600.00. (Compl. at p. 4.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Complaint for Unlawful Detainer.
On March 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed the Notice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction).
On March 28, 2023, Kim filed the instant Demurrer to the Complaint.
On April 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Opposition.
As of April 17, 2023, no Reply has been filed.
DISCUSSION
I. DEMURRER
Kim demurs to the Complaint.
A demurrer should be sustained only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Pro., §§ 430.30, et seq.) As is relevant here, a court should sustain a demurrer if a complaint does not allege facts that are legally sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (See id. § 430.10, subd. (e).) As the Supreme Court held in Blank v. Kirwan (1985) Cal.3d 311: “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. . . . Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Id. at p. 318; see also Hahn. v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 [“A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. [Citation.]”)
“In determining whether the complaint is sufficient as against the demurrer … if on consideration of all the facts stated it appears the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants the complaint will be held good although the facts may not be clearly stated.” (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 639.)
Here, Kim argues that Plaintiff’s complaint fails as Plaintiff failed to properly serve the 3-day notice to pay rent or quit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1162.
Section 1162 states, in relevant part, that a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit may be served “by delivering a copy to the tenant personally.” (Code of Civ. Pro. § 1162(a)(1).)
Here, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff personally served Kim with the 3-day notice on March 14, 2023. Additionally, Plaintiff attaches a copy of that notice, and a copy of the proof of service, to the Complaint. (Compl.; Ex. 2, 3.) While Kim may contest the validity of service, she may not do so at the pleading stage, where the Court must accept the allegations of the Complaint as true. Additionally, Kim has not provided any judicially noticeable material contradicting Plaintiff’s allegation that the 3-day notice was properly served.
Accordingly, Kim’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.
CONCLUSION
Defendant Young Hyo Kim’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. Kim is to file a responsive pleading within five days.
DATED: April 19, 2023
___________________________
Hon. Jill T. Feeney
Judge of the Superior Court
