TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Jeffrey Franklin’s Demurrer to Complaint is OVERRULED.

Defendant Jeffrey Franklin shall file and serve an answer to the Complaint within five (5) days of entry of this order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1167.3.)

Defendant Jeffrey Franklin to give notice. 

REASONING

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant Jeffrey Franklin (“Defendant”) requests judicial notice of the Los Angeles Housing Department Renter Protections Notice dated April 1, 2023. While the document provided is merely a summary of certain provisions, Defendant’s request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h).

Analysis

“[A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true, but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 [court shall not “sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment”]; Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 [“A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.”]; Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 [“When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.”].) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

Defendant demurs to Plaintiff Shores Barrington LLC (“Plaintiff”)’s complaint on the ground that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance set forth in Los Angeles Municipal Code section 165.00 et seq., which went into effect on January 27, 2023. Defendant argues that the complaint fails to allege that the Renter Protection Notice was provided to Defendant or posted at the apartment building, a copy is not attached to the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit, there are no allegations that Defendant was properly advised of the applicable rules, and there are no allegations that written notice terminating the tenancy was filed with the Los Angeles Housing Department within three business days of service.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that it “has complied with all material and pertinent terms of any federal, state, county, or municipal laws regarding the Premises.” (Compl. ¶ 10.) While the provisions cited by Defendant impose certain requirements on a landlord before a tenant may be evicted, there is no legal authority requiring that a property owner allege facts showing compliance with each individual statute. In the context of a demurrer, the Court must assume the truth of Plaintiff’s statement that it complied with all applicable laws. If Plaintiff failed to comply with certain applicable provisions, Defendant may use this as a defense in the context of a dispositive motion or at trial where evidence is considered. At this juncture, Plaintiff’s allegation of compliance with applicable laws is sufficient to state a claim for unlawful detainer.

“The basic elements of unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (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.) Here, Plaintiff has properly pled that Defendant is in possession of premises and in default for nonpayment of rent, he was served with a Notice to Pay Rent or Quit, and the default continued after expiration of the notice. Thus, Plaintiff has properly pled a claim for unlawful detainer. Accordingly, Defendant Jeffrey Franklin’s Demurrer to Complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant Jeffrey Franklin shall file and serve an answer to the Complaint within five (5) days of entry of this order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1167.3.) Defendant Jeffrey Franklin to give notice.