Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV01356, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01356    Hearing Date: September 1, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff Stuart Graber (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendant Derrick Jackson (“Defendant”).

The property at issue is located at 3768 Berry Drive, Studio City, CA 91604. 

Plaintiff alleges that he entered into a written lease agreement with Defendant on July 1, 2022.  Plaintiff alleges that he served on Defendant a 3-day notice to perform covenants or quit on June 12, 2023.  Plaintiff seeks possession of the property, costs incurred in this proceeding, past due rent of $72,000, reasonable attorney’s fees, forfeiture of the agreement, damages in the daily rate of $800 from July 1, 2023, and additional fees and utilities costs. 

B.     Relevant Background

On July 31, 2023, a Notice of Rejection was sent out by the clerk of the court regarding Plaintiff’s request for default against Defendant.  The Notice stated that Plaintiff did not properly fill out all the appropriate sections of the default form.  However, the default form appears to have entered Defendant’s default.

On August 7, 2023, the clerk of the court denied Plaintiff’s second request for default, stating that a demurrer was filed on August 2, 2023.

On Augusts 8, 2023, the default judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant was entered for possession of the premises. 

On August 23, 2023, the Clerk’s Application to Vacate and Order was filed, which vacated the default entered on July 31, 2023 against Defendant, the default judgment entered on August 8, 2023, and the Writ issued on August 22, 2023 on the basis that the request for entry of default was incorrectly entered.  The Order was signed by the Court. 

C.     Demurrer on Calendar

On August 2, 2023, Defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint. Defendant is a self-represented litigant.

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

            Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer complaint on the basis that the complaint lack facts to constitute an unlawful detainer cause of action and is uncertain. 

A.    Unlawful Detainers

“The basic elements of unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (2), are (1) the tenant is in possession of the premises; (2) that possession is without permission; (3) the tenant is in default for nonpayment of rent; (4) the tenant has been properly served with a written three-day notice; and (5) the default continues after the three-day notice period has elapsed.”  (Kruger v. Reyes (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 16.)  CCP § 1161(2) states that the 3-days’ notice must be “in writing, requiring its payment, stating the amount that is due, the name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent payment shall be made” or method of payment if payment is to be made personally, “or possession of the property.”

“Under California statutory law a tenant is entitled to a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit which may be enforced by summary legal proceedings (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161) but this notice is valid and enforceable only if the lessor strictly complies with the specifically described notice conditions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1162.)”  (DHI Cherry Glen Associates, L.P. v. Gutierrez (2019) 46 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 9.)  CCP § 1161(2) requires that the notice for a commercial property state “the amount that is due.”  It does not a require a specific breakdown of calculations.  (See CCP § 1161.1(a), (e) [stating that the notice for commercial properties provide a reasonable estimate of rent due].) 

B.     Discussion of Merits

Defendant argues that the complaint does not allege a contract or a right for Plaintiff to file an unlawful detainer action.  He alleges the complaint has gross errors and is insufficient to allege any cause of action.  He also argues that because the complaint lacks facts, it is a nullity.  Defendant argues that the complaint lacks facts about the written lease agreement, which makes the action subject to dismissal.  Finally, he argues that there has not been proper service upon him. 

While Defendant cites to the law regarding the general standard for ruling on a demurrer, he has not provided any legal analysis for why the complaint is insufficiently pled against him.  In addition, Defendant makes conclusory arguments that the complaint is not adequately pled or is uncertain, but he does not specifically point to any issue with the allegations of the complaint.  With respect to this argument that the complaint fails to allege the written lease terms, the complaint attaches a copy of the Residential Lease or Month-to-Month Rental Agreement as Exhibit 1 to the complaint.  As for arguments regarding whether he was properly served with the summons and complaint, such arguments should have been raised in a motion to quash the summons and complaint; however, now that Defendant has generally appeared in the action by filing this demurrer, he has waived arguments regarding improper service of process. 

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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant Derrick Jackson’s demurrer to the complaint is overruled.  Defendant is ordered to answer within 10 days of this order.

The Court sets a Case Management Conference for December 7, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

            Defendant shall provide notice of this order.