Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 23NWCV00519 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00519, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00519 Hearing Date: April 6, 2023 Dept: C

ROWE v. OHRI

CASE NO.: 23NWCV00519

HEARING: 04/06/23

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant RAGHAV OHRI’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Unlawful Detainer Complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant to Answer in 5 days.

Opposing Party to give notice.

This commercial unlawful detainer action was filed by Plaintiff KUI JA ROWE on February 16, 2023.

The Complaint asserts one sole cause of action for Unlawful Detainer.

Defendant LATIGO, INC. (“Defendant”) demurs on following grounds: (1) the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action; and (2) the Complaint is fatally uncertain.

As to the Entire Complaint – Uncertainty

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s pleading is fatally uncertain. This argument lacks merit because “[a] special demurrer for uncertainty is not intended to reach the failure to incorporate sufficient facts in the pleading but is directed at the uncertainty existing in the allegations actually made.” (Butler v. Sequeira (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 143, 145-146.) Moreover, demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and will only be sustained where the pleading is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond, i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif. Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) 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.” (Ibid.) Here, it is clear from Defendant’s other arguments that it understands what Plaintiff at least attempt to allege, and there is no true uncertainty. The demurrer is not sustained on the basis of uncertainty.

Unlawful Detainer

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cause of action under CCP §430.101(e) because: “[t]he Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Surrender Possession… is vague, uncertain, and therefore, is in violation of Section 1161, as Plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice to Defendant….; and The Notice to Pay is inconsistent with Lease Agreement…..” (Dem. 1:11-17.)

These arguments raise factual issues inappropriately resolved at this stage in the litigation. Evidentiary objections cannot be resolved at this time.

The demurrer is OVERRULED.