Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23PDUD02727, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY. Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:    All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

THANK YOU!

Case Number: 23PDUD02727    Hearing Date: January 10, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations of Complaint

On August 4, 2023, Plaintiff AAA Management Group LLC (“AAA”) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendants Victoria Goring (“Victoria”), Carson Paulina Goring (“Carson”) and Does 1 through 10. The property at issued is located at 1814 Grismer Ave., Unit K, Burbank, CA 91504. AAA alleged that it is the owner of the premises. AAA alleged that on February 1, 2023, it entered into a written agreement for a 12-month tenancy with Victoria and Carson, with rent payable monthly on the first of the month. AAA alleged that Victoria and Carson were served with a 3-day notice to pay rent on quit on July 25, 2023, and the period for Victoria and Carson to comply expired on July 28, 2023. AAA sought possession of the premises, costs incurred in the proceeding, forfeiture of the agreement, and damages at the rate of $66.16 per day from July 29, 2023.

B.     Cross-Complaint

On August 22, 2024, Cross-Complainant Carson Paulina Goring (Cross-Complainant) filed the cross-complaint against Cross-Defendant AAA Management Group LLC (Cross-Defendant). The only cause of action included in the cross-complaint was for apportionment of fault. The cross-complaint did not include any statement of factual allegations beyond those already included in the Form PLD-PI-002, on which the cross-complaint was filed.

C.     Relevant Background

On November 8, 2024, AAA voluntarily filed a request for dismissal of the unlawful detainer action, as possession of the premises was no longer in dispute. The dismissal was merely procedural as the central issue—AAA’s right to possession—had been resolved.

D.    Motion on Calendar

            On December 12, 2024, Cross-Defendant filed the instant demurrer to the sole cause of action in the cross-complaint.

            On December 27, 2024, Cross-Complainant filed its opposition brief.

DISCUSSION                                                                                              

Cross-Defendant demurs to cross-complaint on the basis that the cross-complaint fails to identify any legal basis for equitable apportionment of fault because there is no valid cause of action that underlies the claim for apportionment.

Further, Cross-Defendant contends that the cross-complaint fails to allege any independent factual basis for the claim of fault. Unlawful detainer actions, the underlying claim in this matter, are summary proceedings aimed at determining possession of rental property, not for resolving tort claims such as negligence or product liability, applicable to claims for apportionment of fault. And finally, even if there were factual or legal basis to plead an apportionment of fault claim, Cross-Complainant failed to support its claim with any allegations of fact. The only allegations included in the cross-complaint are those that were pre-printed on the Form PLD-PI-002 on which the cross-complaint was filed.

In opposition, Cross-Complainant contends that the claim of apportionment of fault has solid factual basis because it alleges that the damages Cross-Defendant claims were caused by Cross-Complainant were in fact caused by Cross-Defendant themselves “due to intentional negligence and faulty repairs, as evidenced by LA County inspections.” (Opp., at p. 2:2-3.) Cross-Complainant further claims that “[t]hese damages caused physical, financial and emotional harm to cross-plaintiff, including lasting illness, the loss of a housing voucher, repairs and accommodations that cross-plaintiff paid for out of pocket when threat to their safety was an issue, unlawful harassment and professional incompetence from AAA Management Group.” (Id. at p. 2:3-5.) Ultimately, Cross-Complainant states that its apportionment of fault claim “is supported by additional causes of action; Fraud, Professional Negligence, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress which were filed as causes of action in the cross-complaint.” (Id. at p. 2:5-6.) Each of Cross-Complainant’s assertions are incorrect.

The Court finds that none of Cross-Complainant’s factual contentions were included anywhere in the four corners of the cross-complaint, and, therefore, there is no factual basis for Cross-Complainant’s claim for apportionment of fault. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 430.30(a), 430.70 (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); Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 (on demurrer, trial court determines “whether or not the … complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory.”)) Further, despite Cross-Complainant’s assertion to the contrary, the only cause of action included in or attached to the cross-complaint was its claim for apportionment of fault.

Accordingly, because Cross-Complainant fails to state a calid cause of action and seeks a remedy that is not legally available, Cross-Defendant’s demurrer to the cross-complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Cross-Defendant’s demurrer to the cross-complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. The cross-complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Cross-Defendant shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: January 10, 2025                                         ___________________________

                                                                              John J. Kralik

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court