TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Mark Siffin’s Demurrer to Complaint for Unlawful Detainer is OVERRULED.

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

Clerk to give notice. 

REASONING

“[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 Mark Siffin (“Defendant”) demurs to Plaintiff Oakhurst Income Fund I, LP (“Plaintiff”)’s complaint on the ground that the complaint has improper verification; specifically, Defendant contends no verification has been provided. Code of Civil Procedure section 1166, subdivision (a)(1), provides that an unlawful detainer complaint must be verified and include the name of the person verifying the complaint. This argument is easily rejected, as the sixth page of the filing includes a verification page, which verifies the complaint with the signature of Patrick Lacy, identified as the designated agent and authorized representative of Plaintiff. Defendant provides no other bases for demurring to the complaint. Accordingly, Defendant Mark Siffin’s Demurrer to Complaint for Unlawful Detainer is OVERRULED. Defendant Mark Siffin shall file and serve an answer to the Complaint within five (5) days of entry of this order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1167.3.)