Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV03524, Date: 2024-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV03524, Date: 2024-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV03524 Hearing Date: February 13, 2024 Dept: C

Leila Giries vs Deronn Hasan

Case No.: 23NWCV03524

Hearing Date: February 13, 2024 @ 9:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Defendant Deronn Hasan’s Demurrer is OVERRULED. Answer due in 10 days.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

This is an action for unlawful detainer alleging unpaid rents at the property of 9043 Park Street, Bellflower, CA 90706.

Legal Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. 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 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. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70.) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) A “demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction of instruments pleaded, or facts impossible in law.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 (internal citations omitted).)

Discussion

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s Complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a cause of action. Defendant argues that the three-day notice was improper.

Plaintiff has attached the three-day notice to the Complaint (Complaint, Exhibit 2.) At the pleading stage, the Court must take the allegations in the Complaint as true. Therefore, the Court finds that the Compliant properly alleges that a three-day notice was provided.

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.