Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 24NWCV00104, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 24NWCV00104, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NWCV00104 Hearing Date: February 21, 2024 Dept: C

4511 Firestone v. pena

CASE NO.: 24NWCV00104

HEARING: 2/21/24 @ 10:30 AM

Defendant’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Mario Rene Pena (Defendant) demurs to the Complaint on the grounds that it is uncertain.

Background

This is a commercial unlawful detainer action filed by Plaintiff 4511 Firestone Blvd., LLC against Defendant regarding the non-payment of rent for the real property commonly known as 4481 and 4493 Firesonte Boulevard, South Gate, CA 90280.

Legal Standard

The party against whom a complaint has been filed may object to the pleading, by demurrer, on several grounds, including the ground that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (CCP § 430.10(e).) A party may demur to an entire complaint, or to any causes of action stated therein. (CCP § 430.50(a).) “‘[A] demurrer based on an affirmative defense will be sustained only where the face of the complaint discloses that the action is necessarily barred by the defense.’” (McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 72, 78-79.)

Discussion

Defendant demurs to the Complaint on the grounds that (1) the Notice to Quit is uncertain because it does not state the “role” of the person signing the notice; (2) the amount of rent is uncertain; and (3) it does not state why the Civil Code § 1946.2 (2019 Tenant Protection Act) is not applicable.

First, the Notice Quit is not uncertain. Defendant claims that the Notice to Quit is uncertain because it does not state whether Trish Balesmann, who signed the Notice to Quit, is the landlord, owner, or agent. Defendant provides no authority to support his argument that the Notice to Quit must state the title of the person signing the notice. Further, it is clear that Ms. Balesmann is an agent of 4511 Firestone Blvd., LLC. Thus, the Notice to Quit is no uncertain.

Second, the amount of rent sought in the Complaint is not uncertain. The Complaint states that the monthly rent was changed from the initial $16,000.00 per month to $7,892.76 per month currently. The amount of rent is allowed to be changed during a tenancy and Defendant offers no authority to support his position that a complaint is uncertain because the rent changed. Thus, the amount of rent sought in the Complaint is not uncertain.

Finally, the Complaint is not uncertain because it states why Civil Code § 1946.2 does not apply. Civil Code § 1946.2 only applies to residential leases. The Complaint alleges that this is a commercial lease. Thus, the Complaint is not uncertain. Therefore, Defendant’s Demurrer is overruled.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant is to file an answer within 5 days of this Order.