Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCV05104, Date: 2024-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: October 30, 2024

Case Name: Romo, et al. v. Vartanian, et al.

Case No.: 24STCV01868 

Matter: Demurrer

Moving Party: Defendants Sandra Vartanian, trustee of the Sandra Vartanian Revocable 

Trust dated 6/22/2022

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Leticia Romo, John Michael Sanchez, and Juan Jose Sanchez 

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Demurrer is overruled.

Moving parties to give notice.

On January 24, 2024, Plaintiffs Leticia Romo, John Michael Sanchez, and Juan Jose Sanchez filed the operative Complaint against Defendants Alexan Vartanian, Incan Project Development Group, Inc., and Does 1-20 for (1) negligence, (2) breach of warranty of habitability, (3) violation of LAMC § 45.33, and (4) violations of the UCL.

On May 22, 2024, Doe 1 was identified as Sandra Vartanian, trustee of the Sandra Vartanian Revocable Trust dated 6/22/2022 (“Sandra”). 

Sandra now demurs to the Complaint for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts.

When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context, and “treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)  “A 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. The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.”  (Hahn v. Mirda¿(2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)  It is error “to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if the plaintiff shows there is a reasonable possibility any defect identified by the defendant can be cured by amendment.”  (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist.¿(1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

Sandra primarily argues that her “only . . .  ownership/landlord connection with Plaintiffs . . . was between [July] 20, 2022 [ ] and June 16, 2023 . . . . As pointed out in the INTRODUCTION herein, however, Plaintiffs complaint allegations do not specify the dates the alleged landlord/owner wrongdoing occurred, NOR does it even mention specific acts or representations of Demurring Defendant SANDRA.”

This argument is rejected.  The Complaint plainly states that in 2022/2023—when Sandra was admittedly an owner—nothing was done to restore the utilities for Plaintiffs’ units.  Rather, Defendants fought each other for title to the property, which was the basis of 22STCV27277—a case that was heard in this department.  

The only other argument is that “the negligence claim is likely time barred under the applicable statute of limitations as the statute of limitations runs when the Plaintiff knew or should have known of the wrongful conduct. It was more than three years since the Property was constructed allegedly without permits, and therefore, this is barred under the applicable statute of limitations . . . .”  (emphasis added.)  The Complaint, however, addresses a number of different wrongs—for example, Sandra’s failure to restore utilities to the entire property.    

The Demurrer is overruled.  An answer is to be filed within 20 days. 

Moving parties to give notice.