Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 23STCV30051, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling

This is an unlawful detainer action. On February 8, 2023, Plaintiff, Jungle Kerry, Inc., filed a Judicial Council Form Complaint against Defendant, Mokhtar Jabli, for remaining in possession of the real property at 9010 Hopen Place, Los Angeles, California 90069 after failing to pay rent. Plaintiff served Defendant with a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit.

On April 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant for unnecessary delay occasioned by the filing of this demurrer.

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face.¿ (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.)¿ “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.¿ We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.¿ [Citation.]”¿ (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 [“the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].) Allegations are to be liberally construed.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)¿ In construing the allegations, the court is to give effect to specific factual allegations that may modify or limit inconsistent general or conclusory allegations.¿ (Financial Corporation of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 769.)¿¿If the cause of action is based in statute, the facts supporting each statutory requirement must be specifically pled. (Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 604.)

A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) “A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.”¿(Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)¿¿¿

Where the complaint contains substantial factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty will be overruled or plaintiff will be given leave to amend.¿ (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)¿ 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 complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Ibid.)¿

Defendant brings this demurrer on two grounds: (1) the Complaint does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1166, and (2) the Complaint fails to state a cause of action.

The arguments are not well taken. Defendant utterly fails to explain how the Complaint does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1166. Defendant states only that the “notice to quit, summons and complaints must be consistent.” (Dem., p. 4.) To the extent Defendant is implying there are inconsistencies across the notice to quiet, summons, complaint, Defendant does not so demonstrate. Indeed, a review of those documents proves otherwise. Defendant’s second argument is even less developed and deserves no further consideration.

The demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant is ordered to serve and file his Answer to the Complaint within 5 days of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court