Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00977, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00977    Hearing Date: January 13, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Fallon Rambeau Properties LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendants Rafael Aaron Segovia (“Segovia”) and Iron Works Plus LLC (“Iron Works”) on November 15, 2022.  The property at issue is located at 2457 Chico Avenue, South El Monte, CA 91733.  Plaintiff alleges that it entered into a written lease agreement with Defendants on November 12, 2020.  Plaintiff alleges that it served a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit on November 10, 2022. 

On December 21, 2022, the default of Iron Works was entered. 

B.     Motions on Calendar

On December 8, 2022, Defendant Rafael Aaron Segovia (in propria persona) filed a demurrer and motion to strike in a single document.   

On December 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

            Segovia demurs to the complaint on the ground that it fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against him, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Segovia, and the complaint is uncertain.  Segovia moves to strike the entirety of the complaint.

            The memorandum of points and authorities is essentially a consecutively numbered list of headings (Dem. at p.3) and then the recitation of the law with respect to demurrers (Dem. at p.4). 

            The only arguments presented by Segovia in his moving papers is that the complaint is defective because it states that Defendants failed to comply with the requirements of the notice served.  (Dem. at p.4.)  He argues that the statement is incorrect because Plaintiff did not accept the rent before the notices expired and this action is based on a fraudulent document.  (Id., at pp.4-5.) 

            First, Segovia has not provided legal arguments or citations to the complaint to show that the complaint lacks sufficient facts to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer against him.  Similarly, he has not provided arguments supported by the law showing that the allegations are uncertain.

            Second, Segovia has not shown how the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action and the parties herein.

            Third, Segovia’s arguments that the complaint is fraudulent or that Plaintiff refused to accept rental payments are based on extrinsic facts that are outside the allegations of the complaint.  “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.”¿ (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.)¿ As such, the Court will disregard Segovia’s arguments raised in his demurrer papers as they are outside the allegations alleged by Plaintiff in the complaint.

            For these reasons, the demurrer to the complaint is overruled.

            Segovia’s motion to strike the entirety of the complaint is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Defendant Rafael Aaron Segovia’s demurrer to the unlawful detainer complaint is overruled.  Defendant’s motion to strike the entirety of the complaint is denied

Defendant is ordered to file an answer to the complaint within 5 days of this order.

Defendant shall provide notice of this order.