Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2023-00032162-CU-UD-CTL, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 19, 2023

10/20/2023  01:30:00 PM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Unlawful Detainer - Residential Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00032162-CU-UD-CTL PACIFIC REGENCY PALMS LLC VS RICHARDS [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, 10/04/2023

Tentative Ruling on Motion for JOP Pacific Regency Palms v. Richards, Case No. 2023-32162 Oct. 20, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This is a UD case involving a disabled elderly woman and a residential care facility in Vista. The complaint was filed in July of 2023, and defendant answered in September. On October 13, the court appointed defendant's son as her GAL. ROA 52.

Presently, defendant seeks judgment on the pleadings. ROA 34-36. Plaintiff filed opposition. ROA 37-38. Defendant waived reply. The court has reviewed the briefs. The case is set for trial next month.

ROA 50-51, 56-57.

2. Applicable Standards.

A. Motions for judgment on the pleadings are governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 438. If the moving party is a defendant – as is the case here – the motion may only be made on the following grounds: (1) the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint; or (2) the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.

Code Civ. Proc. § 438(c)(1)(B). 'The standard for granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216. In making this determination, the court must liberally construe the pleading with a view to substantial justice between the parties. Code Civ. Proc. § 452.

B. 'An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding; calendar precedence is given, and only the right to possession is in issue.' Fish Construction Co. v. Moselle Coach Works, Inc. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 654, 658. Due to the summary nature of the proceeding, strict compliance with the statutory requirements is a prerequisite to a landlord's recovery of possession. Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Center (2018) 6 Cal.5th 474, 480.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3038052  45 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PACIFIC REGENCY PALMS LLC VS RICHARDS [IMAGED]  37-2023-00032162-CU-UD-CTL 3. Discussion and Ruling.

A. The motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted with leave to amend.

California Code of Regulations section 87224 governs evictions for residential care facilities for the elderly. Among other things, a notice to quit served under this section must include '[r]esources available to assist in identifying alternative housing and care options[.]' Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 87224(d)(1)(B).

In this case, the notice attached to the complaint does not contain such a list of resources. (See Complaint, Ex. 2.) Moreover, plaintiff concedes that the notice attached to the complaint is incomplete.

(Oppo. at 5:8-11.) Accordingly, the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for unlawful detainer under section 87224. Code Civ. Proc. § 438(c)(1)(B). While plaintiff has submitted the complete notice to quit in connection with its opposition brief (ROA 37), the court cannot consider it. 'A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed.' Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.

B. It is ordinarily an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend unless the inability to state a valid cause of action is clear. In this respect, plaintiff has the burden to show in what manner it can amend the complaint and how the amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading. Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 (regarding demurrers). By submitting a copy of the complete notice to quit, plaintiff has met its burden. Moreover, '[l]iberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given.' Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227. Accordingly, plaintiff is granted leave to amend the complaint.

Plaintiff must file and serve the first amended complaint by October 25, 2023. CRC 3.1320(g).

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3038052  45