Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV11678, Date: 2024-07-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV11678 Hearing Date: July 2, 2024 Dept: 72
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 72
TENTATIVE
RULING
117 SOUTH LAFAYETTE PARK PLACE LLC, Plaintiff, v. JOEL TREJO, et al., Defendants. |
Case No: Hearing Date: July 2, 2024 Calendar Number: 12 |
Defendants Joel Trejo and Corina Trejo (“Defendants”) demur
to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff 117 South Lafayette Park Place, LLC
(“Plaintiff”). Defendants additionally move to strike the Complaint.
The Court OVERRULES the demurrer.
The Court DENIES the motion to strike.
This
is an unlawful detainer case. The following facts are taken from the Complaint
and supporting documents.
Defendants
are tenants at the residential property located at 117 S. La Fayette Park
Place, #19, Los Angeles, California 90057 (the “Property”). Plaintiff is the
owner of the Property. Defendants agreed to rent the property month-to-month
and pay rent of $900.00 per month. The monthly rent was later adjusted to
$1,057.34.
On
April 22, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendants with a three-day notice to pay rent
or quite (the “Notice”). The Notice requested a total of $12,322.05 in rent for
the period from May 1, 2023 through April 30, 2024.
Plaintiff
filed this action on May 9, 2024, seeking payment of the rent sought in the
Notice, forfeiture of the apartment, damages in the amount of $25.24 per day,
and attorney’s fees.
Defendants
demurred to the Complaint on May 16, 2024. Plaintiff filed an opposition.
Defendants did not file a reply.
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).
The court may, upon a motion, or at any time in its
discretion, and upon terms it deems proper, strike any irrelevant, false, or
improper matter inserted in any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436(a).) The
court may also strike all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in
conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 436(b).) The grounds for a motion to strike are that the
pleading has irrelevant, false or improper matter, or has not been drawn or
filed in conformity with laws. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) The grounds for moving
to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or by way of judicial notice.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 437.)
Plaintiff’s Complaint consists of a completed UD-100
unlawful detainer form complaint. On its face, the Complaint appears to state a
claim for unlawful detainer. Defendants argue that the Complaint fails to state
a cause of action, but do not identify any defects of the Complaint that result
in it failing to state a cause of action.
Defendants similarly argue that the Complaint is uncertain,
but do not identify any defects indicating as such.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff does not have standing to
sue. The Complaint does not indicate facts showing a lack of standing. This is
therefore a factual issue not appropriate for resolution at the pleading stage.
The Court therefore overrules the demurrer.
Defendants do not file a separate motion to strike or argue
a separate basis for striking some or all of the Complaint in his demurrer
papers. The Court therefore denies the motion to strike.