Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00200, Date: 2023-08-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22BBCV00200 Hearing Date: August 18, 2023 Dept: NCB
North Central District
|
noemi villalobos, Plaintiff, v. omra LOERA, et al., Defendants. |
Case
No.: 22BBCV00200 Hearing Date: August 18, 2023 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: demurrer |
BACKGROUND
A.
Allegations
Plaintiff Noemi Villalobos (“Plaintiff”)
alleges that she is a tenant of residential property located at 1236 N. Orchard
Dr., Burbank, CA 91506. She alleges that
she took possession in 2012. She alleges
that prior to, but specifically since March 30, 2019, she was paying money to
Defendant for use of the property until she vacated the property in March 2022. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Oasis Builders is
the alter alias of Defendant Omar Loera (“Loera”) and the manager of the
property. Loera is alleged to be the
legal owner of the property.
Plaintiff alleges that she was renting an
illegal and unpermitted converted backhouse at the property zoned for single
family residency. She alleges that the
backhouse did not have a certificate of occupancy. She alleges that she discovered water damage throughout
the interior and exterior walls of the property in September 2021. She alleges that in 2019 to 2022, she
sustained injuries in connection with the water intrusion and subsequent mold
and mildew. (TAC, ¶13.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached the
minimum California State requirements because the property had non-functional
or lack of adequate heating, unapproved and illegal construction, rubbish,
electrical wiring not up to code, filth, intentional interference with estate, lack
of hot water and water/leaking plumbing, and general non-maintenance. (Id., ¶14.) Plaintiff alleges she notified Loera about
the violations and that Code Enforcement for Los Angeles notified Loera of the
violation in writing around October 2021.
(Id., ¶15.) She alleges
that unbeknownst to her until October 2021, the property lacked any permitting
or certificates of occupancy. (Id.,
¶17.) She also alleges that the property
did not contain functioning smoke or carbon monoxide detectors. (Id., ¶18.) In October 2021, Defendants told Plaintiff
that she must vacate the property on February 15, 2022 so he could personally use
the property. (Id., ¶19.) Plaintiff alleges that after vacating the
property, the property was advertised for rent at a higher rate. (Id., ¶20.)
The third amended complaint (“TAC”), filed May
30, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) tortious breach of warranty of
habitability; (2) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) nuisance; (4)
negligence; and (5) intentional interference with estate (Civ. Code, § 789.3).
B.
Demurrer
on Calendar
On July 7, 2023, Defendant Loera filed a
demurrer to the 2nd cause of action alleged in the TAC.
On July 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed an
opposition brief.
On August 4, 2023, Defendant filed a reply
brief.
DISCUSSION
A. 2nd cause of action – breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment
“In the absence of
language to the contrary, every lease contains an implied
covenant of quiet enjoyment, whereby the landlord impliedly covenants
that the tenant shall have quiet enjoyment and possession of the
premises.” (Andrews v. Mobile
Aire Estates (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 578, 588.) Substantial interference of the tenant’s right to use and
enjoy the premises for the purposes contemplated by the tenancy (as opposed to
minor inconveniences and annoyances) is required to establish a breach of quiet
enjoyment. (Id. at 589.)
In the 2nd cause of action,
Plaintiff alleges that implied in every rental agreement is a covenant that the
landlord/Loera will not interfere with the tenant/Plaintiff’s quiet enjoyment of
the property during the term of the tenancy.
(TAC, ¶31.) Plaintiff alleges: “Defendant Loera breached this implied covenant of quiet enjoyment
as alleged herein, including, but not limited to, by his knowingly offering and
renting an unpermitted, otherwise illegal unit, and accepting cash for its use
– which in and of itself is a violation of California law. Defendant further breached
this covenant, by his persistent and intentional refusal to repair the
allegedly habitability violations that arose, or address and abate conditions
causing Plaintiff discomfort and disruption.”
(Id., ¶32.) Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants’ refusal to repair and abate the multiple issues was
made after and despite being notified of the conditions by Plaintiff and/or
third parties on multiple occasions throughout the lease, from 2014 through
2019, and on multiple occasions in 2019, 2020, 2021 and as recently as March 3,
2022, although Plaintiff did not understand the breadth of the illegality until
about October 2021. (Id.,
¶¶33-34.) Plaintiff
also alleges that Defendants breached the implied covenant by failing to
address the concerns. (Id., ¶35.) Plaintiff alleges that she incorrectly
claimed she was unaware of these issues when in fact she was aware and made
Defendant aware of the issues throughout the tenancy; what she was unaware of
until October 2021 was the lack of certificate of occupancy and otherwise
illegal and unpermitted conditions at the property. (Id., ¶36.)
The
Court notes that it previously sustained the demurrers to the 2nd
cause of action in the initial complaint, the FAC, and the SAC on the grounds
that Plaintiff failed to allege that there was a substantial interference by
Defendant. In its last order on the
demurrer, the Court noted that Plaintiff’s counsel represented he would provide
allegations regarding the lease terms based on Plaintiff’s recollection of the
material terms of the agreement. The
Court allowed Plaintiff a final opportunity to amend the 2nd cause
of action. (The Court also provided
Plaintiff leave to amend the 5th cause of action in the TAC for
breach of contract, but it appears that Plaintiff has gotten rid of this cause
of action.)
In
the TAC, Plaintiff has alleged additional facts in paragraphs 32 regarding how
Loera breached the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, such as by renting an
unpermitted unit and failing to repair habitability violations, which caused
Plaintiff discomfort and disruption.
However, the remainder of the 2nd cause of action is
relatively unchanged. Plaintiff has not
alleged how being an unpermitted unit caused a substantial interference with
her tenancy as she alleges in the TAC that she was unaware that she was in an
illegal unit until October 2021, which is almost 7 years after she entered the
property in 2014. (See TAC, ¶34.) Further, Plaintiff has not alleged any
additional facts regarding how the habitability issues caused a substantial
interference with her tenancy, as opposed to a minor inconvenience.
The
Court has provided Plaintiff multiple opportunities to amend this cause of
action and Plaintiff has failed to do so.
As such, the demurrer to the 2nd cause of action is sustained
without leave to amend.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Defendant Omar Loera’s demurrer to the third amended complaint is sustained
without leave to amend as to the 2nd cause of action.
Defendant shall provide notice of this order.