Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 24NWCV00019, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 24NWCV00019, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NWCV00019 Hearing Date: February 13, 2024 Dept: C

The Susan M. Pratto Trust Dated July 2, 1998 and Renee E. Pratto Trust Dated December 16, 1997 Acting Through Susan M. Pratto vs Soft Packaging, Inc.

Case No.: 24NWCV00019

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

Tentative Ruling

Defendant Soft Packing, Inc.’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Background

This is a complaint for unlawful detainer by Plaintiff The Susan M. Pratto Trust Dated July 2,1998 and Renee E. Pratto Trust Dated December 16,1997 acting through Susan M. Pratto, as trustee (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant Soft Packaging, Inc. (“Defendant”) regarding the commercial real property located at 13211 Florence Avenue, Santa Fe Springs, California 90670 (the "Property").

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 the Complaint on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Defendant argues Plaintiff’s three-day notice to perform or quit was defective because the lease agreement entitles Defendant to thirty-days’ notice.

Defendant relies upon section 13.1(e) of the lease agreement which states: “A Default by Lessee as to the terms, covenants, conditions or provisions of this Lease, or of the rules adopted under Paragraph 40 hereof other than those described in subparagraphs 13.1(a), (b), (c) or (d), above, where such Default continues for a period of 30 days after written notice; provided, however, that if the nature of Lessee's Default is such that more than 30 days are reasonably required for its cure, then it shall not be deemed to be a Breach if Lessee commences such cure within said 30 day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes such cure to completion.” (Complaint, Ex. 1, Lease Agreement ¶ 13(e).)

Plaintiff argues that the notices are for illegal activities and nuisance which are specifically governed by section 13.1(c) of the lease agreement. This section only requires a three-day notice period: “The failure of Lessee to allow Lessor and/or its agents access to the Premises or the commission of waste, act or acts constituting public or private nuisance, and/or an illegal activity on the Premises by Lessee, where such actions continue for a period of 3 business days following written notice to Lessee. In the event that Lessee commits waste, a nuisance or an illegal activity a second time then, the Lessor may elect to treat such conduct as a non-curable Breach rather than a Default.” (Complaint, Ex. 1, Lease Agreement ¶ 13(c) (emphasis added).)

The Court must accept as true all facts properly pleaded in the Complaint. Here, Plaintiff alleges the existence of the Lease Agreement (Complaint ¶ 7); termination of the Lease Agreement by Notices served on December 15, 2023, which all expired no later than December 22,2023 (Complaint ¶¶15-17), and defendant remains in possession of the Property (Complaint ¶ 19). Based thereon, the Court determines that Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.