Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV07473, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV07473    Hearing Date: May 9, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant T.D. Trauth (“Defendant”) demurs to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Linda Greif, Trustee of the Greif Family Trust (“Plaintiff”).

The Court OVERRULES the demurrer.

Background

            This is an unlawful detainer case. The following facts are taken from the Complaint and supporting documents.

            Defendant is a tenant at the residential property located at 725 N. Sweetzer Avenue, Unit 102, Los Angeles, California 90069 (the “Property”). Plaintiff is the landlord and owner of the Property. Plaintiff agreed to rent the property month-to-month and pay rent of $2,100.00 per month.

            On March 12, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit (the “Notice”) by posting it on the premises. The Notice stated that Plaintiff owed $29,400.00 in unpaid rent for the period of February 15, 2022 through April 14, 2023.

            Plaintiff filed this action on March 22, 2022, seeking past-due rent of $29,400.00, attorney’s fees, forfeiture of the agreement, and damages.

Legal Standard

As a general matter, in a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) The court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Ibid.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Ibid.; Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 226.) However, “[i]f there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend.” (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245).

Discussion

Defendant argues that the Complaint is unverified and that it is therefore subject to demurrer. However, Plaintiff provided verification in an attachment to the Complaint. (Complaint at p. 4; Complaint at PDF p. 9.)

Defendant additionally argues that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action, but does not identify any defects of the Complaint that result in it failing to state a cause of action.

The Court therefore overrules the demurrer.