Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00848, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23NWCV00848 Hearing Date: September 6, 2023 Dept: C
leonis property v. a&a global imports
CASE NO.: 23NWCV00848
HEARING: 9/6/23 @ 10:30 AM
#11
Defendant's
Demurrer to Complaint for Unlawful Detainer is OVERRULED.
Plaintiff to give NOTICE.
Defendant A&A Global Imports, LLC
(Defendant) demurs to Plaintiff Leonis Property, LLC (Plaintiff)’s Complaint on
the following grounds: (1) the pendency of the prior filed “Lease
Litigation”/Related Action warrants abatement of this UD action; and (2) the
Complaint fails to state a cause of action.
This
commercial unlawful detainer action was filed by Plaintiff on March 20, 2023.
Abatement
A special demurrer to a complaint may be
brought on the ground that another action is pending between the same parties
on the same causes of action. (CCP § 430.10(c); see also People ex rel.
Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 760, 770 [“plea
in abatement”].) The other pending action must involve the same parties in the
same relationship, i.e., as plaintiff or defendant (Plant Insulation Co. v.
Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 789), and must involve the
identical cause of action in both suits such that a judgment in the first would
be res judicata on the claim in the second (Bush v. Superior Court
(1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1374, 1384). The demurrer is not sustained pursuant to
CCP §430.10(c). The related breach of lease action does not concern the same
parties in the same relationship, and does not involve identical causes of
action. Plaintiff’s sole claim in this action is for unlawful detainer—no other
causes of action are alleged.
Unlawful Detainer
Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to allege
sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action because, “[w]hile the initial
term of the Lease was for three years, the Parties engaged in repeated
negotiations to further extend the term of the Lease. Ultimately, on or about
February 9, 2022, the Parties agreed in writing to the material terms necessary
to extend the term of the Lease beyond through August 31, 2025…. Leonis is
unreasonably refused to extend the term of the Lease in accordance with the Parties’
agreement.” (Demurrer. 7:1-9.) These arguments raise factual issues
inappropriately resolved at this stage in the litigation. The demurrer is
OVERRULED.
Accordingly, Defendant's Demurrer
to Complaint for Unlawful Detainer is OVERRULED. Defendant is to file its
answer within five days of this order.