Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV12661, Date: 2023-12-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV12661    Hearing Date: December 4, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.

            On 6/2/2023, Plaintiff Mission Village II. L.P. filed an unlawful detainer action against Marisol Peralta Macias (Defendant).

            Now, in pro per Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

            While Defendant’s filing also lists a motion to strike, no such motion was included in the moving papers, and thus is not considered here.

Discussion

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim because: (1) the person who filed the pleading does not have the capacity to sue; (2) the Complaint lacks sufficient facts to state a claim; and (3) the pleadings are uncertain, ambiguous, and or unintelligible.

            As a preliminary matter, Defendant’s memorandum of points and authority consists almost entirely of recitations of law with no analysis to the underlying facts. Going forward, Defendant must not only identify the applicable law, but must also set forth argument as to how that law applies to the underlying facts.

            The only substantive argument advanced by Defendant is that Plaintiff “does not have capacity to sue because Plaintiff is in violation of local black letter law and regulations. Plaintiff’s complaint is in violation of the Los Angeles City Ordinance 186606 because the Plaintiff’s complaint with a non-payment cause of action. The Complaint’s sole cause of action is illegal within the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles and the Complaint has failed to state any other legal cause of action and as such the complaint has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Defendant brings forth this demurrer because the Plaintiff’s complaint is facially defective and cannot sustain the unlawful detainer complaint.” (Demurer, 2: 1-9.)

            However, Defendant’s demurrer is not accompanied by any discussion as to why Plaintiff’s Complaint is illegal nor does it set forth facts or law that could show that Defendant lacks capacity to sue based on this provision.

            In opposition, Plaintiff contends that it has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim, that its claim is not uncertain, and that it has the capacity to sue.

            As to the first contention, Plaintiff notes that the unlawful detainer complaint is pled on the judicial council form for unlawful detainer complaints. All the appropriate and relevant sections of the unlawful detainer form complaint have been checked-off, as well as attaching as exhibits the Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit (Compl. Exh 2) and the Declaration of Service of the Notice (Compl. Exh 3). As such, the Court sees no basis to conclude that Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to state a claim. Defendant did not file a reply addressing or refuting any of these assertions. 

            As to the second contention, a demurrer for uncertainty will only be sustained where the complaint is so poorly pled that a defendant cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her. Here, Plaintiff contends that the Complaint clearly advises Defendant what must be admitted and/or denied. The Court agrees.

            As to the third contention, Plaintiff notes that it has alleged that it is the owner of the premises. The Court accepts this as true at the pleading stage. Accordingly, Plaintiff has alleged facts which could show it has legal capacity to pursue this suit.

            Finally, as to City Ordinance 186606, codified as LAMC section 49.99.2, this provision creates an affirmative defense, and is not a prohibition on filing an unlawful detainer. (See LAMC §49.99.6, which states “[t]enants may use the protections afforded in this article as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer action.”) As such, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that section 49.99.2 does not make this lawsuit unlawful.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is overruled. Defendant is directed to file an answer within 5 days of entry of this order. (CCP § 1167.3)

It is so ordered.

Dated:  December    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.