Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV04125, Date: 2024-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV04125    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: C

SOTO v. MARTINEZ

CASE NO.: 23NWCV04125

HEARING:  03/21/24

#10

Defendant GLORIA MARTINEZ’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.

Moving Party to give Notice.

This action for unlawful detainer concerning real property located at 7546 Stewart and Gray Rd. #101, Downey, CA 90241 (“Subject Property”) was filed by Plaintiffs MARY LOU SOTO and JOSE SOTA (“Plaintiffs”) (in pro per) on December 20, 2023 against Defendants GLORIA MARTINEZ; CESAR MARTINEZ; JULIET MARTINEZ; ABIGAIL MARTINEZ; and “DAUGHTERS” (collectively “Defendants”) on December 20, 2023.  

Defendant Gloria Martinez generally and specially demurs to the Complaint.

 “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.) Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, but will 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.)

“[T]he basic elements of unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent contained in CCP §1161(2) are: (1) the tenant is in possession of the premises; (2) that possession is without permission; (3) the tenant is in default for nonpayment of rent; (4) the tenant has been properly served with a written three-day notice; and (5) the default continues after the three-day notice period has elapsed.”  (Kruger v. Reyes (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 16.)

Plaintiffs’ Form Complaint is uncertain in that it is unclear what the terms of any tenancy agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendants are, and how Defendants have allegedly breached any such agreement. Moreover, the Form Complaint fails to sufficiently allege or address: Plaintiff’s capacity to sue (Complaint ¶2); the terms of the tenancy agreement purportedly in effect between the parties; (Complaint ¶6); whether the tenancy is subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (Complaint ¶7); how Defendants received notice to vacate (Complaint ¶9a); the terms/contents of any Notice to Vacate (Complaint ¶9b); how any purported Notice was served and when (Complaint ¶10a); what amount of rent is due and the fair rental value of the premises (Complaint ¶¶12-13.)

Moreover, pursuant to judicially noticeable documents, Plaintiffs do not appear to be the owners of the Subject Property. (See RJN Exs. 1-3). An unlawful detainer judgment in favor of Nord Star Apartments was entered against the Soto Plaintiffs on November 3, 2023. It is uncertain what Plaintiffs’ interest in the Property is.

It is unclear how these deficiencies can be overcome by amendment. However, since this is the first attack on Plaintiffs’ pleading, and in light of the liberal policy concerning amendments, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.