Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV03087, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV03087    Hearing Date: March 15, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff RRRM Holding Company, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges that it is entitled to possession of 7139 Foothill Boulevard, Tujunga, CA 91042 as the owner of the real property.  Plaintiff alleges that on April 27, 2002, Plaintiff entered into a written lease agreement with Defendant Vigan Sardariani (“Defendant”).  Plaintiff alleges that the lease expired and became a month-to-month tenancy effective May 1, 2012.  Plaintiff alleges that since September 30, 2023, rent was due and owing in the amount of $121,000. 

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed February 20, 2024, allege causes of action for: (1) non-payment of rent; and (2) failure to vacate after termination of tenancy.

On February 2, 2024, the default of All Tenants, Subtenants, Named Claimants and Other Occupants was entered. 

B.     Motion on Calendar

On February 26, 2024, Defendant filed a demurrer to the FAC. 

On March 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

            Defendant demurs to the FAC on the ground that it is uncertain at paragraph 2; the 1^st cause of action is uncertain as to paragraphs 6 and 7; and the 1^st cause of action fails to state sufficient facts to state a cause of action.

            First, Defendant argues that the 1^st cause of action fails to allege sufficient facts for a breach of contract cause of action.  In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges that on April 27, 2002, Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, Roland Markarian, entered into a lease agreement with Defendant and cites to Exhibit 3.  (FAC, ¶2.)  Plaintiff alleges that it has attached a copy of the rental agreement with any addendums/attachments in its possession.  (Id.)  Exhibit 3 is not identified in the FAC as an attachment.  However, if the Court looks at the “Exhibit 2” stamped documents, there are additional documents with exhibits that that are entitled Exhibit 1.2 (page 2 of 10), Exhibit 1.3 (page 3 of 10), Exhibit 1.7 (page 7 of 10), Exhibit 1.10 (page 10 of 10), Exhibit 1.6 (page 6 of 10), Exhibit 9 (page 9 of 10), and Exhibit 1.5 (page 5 of 10).  The Court will consider these as the “Exhibit 3” documents.  While the rental agreement document is not fully complete, Plaintiff has at least alleged the terms of the rental payments to put Defendant on notice of the particular contract term at issue in this action.  Considering Plaintiff’s allegations in the FAC, together with the pages of the lease agreement, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts regarding the terms of the agreement.  Obtaining a full copy of the lease and any attachments/amendments thereto is better left for the discovery stage.  The demurrer will be overruled on this basis. 

            Second, Defendant argues that the FAC is uncertain because Plaintiff has only attached a part of the contract, but has omitted pages 4, 8, and 9, which makes the agreement incomplete.  Defendant argues that paragraph 6 is uncertain because it incorporates the prior allegations (including paragraph 2).  However, as discussed above, the Court will overrule the demurrer on this basis.

            Defendant also argues that paragraph 7 is uncertain.  Paragraph 7 alleges that the sum of $121,000 in rent was due and owing as of September 30, 2023.  Defendant argues that the notice to pay rent or quit attached to the complaint is dated September 28, 2023 and does not reference a September 30, 2023 date.  The Court notes that in its prior order on the demurrer to the initial complaint, the complaint had alleged that Plaintiff was seeking rent up until October 1, 2023, which would begin a new month of rent that would be due.  The Court stated that if Plaintiff was only seeking rental payments up until September 30, 2023 (and not a new rental period starting on October 1, 2023), then Plaintiff should correct and clarify this in the complaint’s allegations as seeking October 2023 rent was improper. 

            Here, Plaintiff has amended the complaint to seek rent for the entire month of September 2023.  Although the notice was signed on September 28, 2023, the alleged default of the lease terms occurred on September 1, 2023, the time when the rent was due.  The September 1, 2023 rental payment would have covered the month of September (which is September 1 to 30, 2023). Thus, the Court will allow the allegations to stand.  The demurrer on this basis is overruled. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Defendant Vigan Sardariani’s demurrer to the first amended complaint is overruled.  Defendant is ordered to answer.

Defendant shall give notice of this order.   

DATED: March 15, 2024                                                       ___________________________

                                                                                          John Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court