Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 24PDUD01167, Date: 2024-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PDUD01167    Hearing Date: April 29, 2024    Dept: P

[TENTATIVE] ORDER OVERRULING DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT

I.        INTRODUCTION

           In this unlawful detainer action, Plaintiffs Charles R. Norman, Caroline I. Norman and Cecelia A. Grace, trustees of the Charles R. Norman Family Trust (collectively Plaintiffs) allege that Defendant Simon (Redacted) was provided the premises at 6837 North Avenue, San Gabriel CA 91775 as part of his employment. The complaint alleges that on February 2, 2024, the employment relationship ended and (Redacted) failed to vacate the premises.

Plaintiffs filed this action on March 28, 2024. (Redacted) demurred to the Complaint on April 11, 2024. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on April 18, 2024.

           On demurrer, (Redacted) alleges that the complaint (1) fails to state a cause of action, (2) the complaint is not verified and (3) the 3-day notice to quit was served prematurely.

           The demurrer is overruled.

II.       LEGAL STANDARD

A. Law Governing Unlawful Detainers      

An unlawful detainer action can be filed at any time while the defendant is in actual possession of the property. Unlawful detainer actions are summary proceedings. (CCP § 1161.) The timeline for pretrial proceedings is short. Defendants have five days to respond to a pleading, including by demurrer. (CCP § 1167.)  

Pleading requirements for unlawful detainers are contained in CCP section 1166. The requirements include verification, allegation of the facts on which plaintiff seeks to recover, and a description of the premises. A complaint grounded in CCP section 1161(2) (non-payment of rent) must plead the amount of rent in default. (CCP § 1166(a)(4).) The pleading must also allege the method used to serve notice on the defendant; this requirement may be satisfied by using the Judicial Council form or by attaching proof of service of the notice. (CCP § 1166(a)(5).)

Additionally, if the notice demands payment of COVID-19 recovery period rental debt” served under CCP section 1161(2) and is served before April 1, 2022, there are additional requirements. (CCP § 1179.10(a).) If the notice is served between April 1, 2022 and July 1, 2022, there are additional requirements. (CCP § 1197.10(b).) COVID-19 recovery period rental debt is defined as rental debt that came due between October 1, 2021 and March 1, 2022. (CCP § 1179.09(b).)

B. Law Governing Demurrers 

A general demurrer lies where a complaint fails to state a cause of action. (CCP § 430.10(e).) A demurrer challenges defects appearing on the face of the complaint or in material of which judicial notice may be taken. (CCP § 430.30.) A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)  A demurrer admits, provisionally for purposes of testing the pleading, all material facts properly pleaded. (Tindell v. Redacted (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1239, 1247.) Allegations need not be accepted as true if they are contradicted by judicially noticeable facts. (Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1474.) Unambiguous facts appearing in exhibits attached to the complaint, such as a three-day notice, are judicially noticed and given precedence over inconsistent allegations in the complaint. (See, e.g., Dodd v. Citizens Bank of Costa Mesa (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1624, 1626-1627; Richtek USA, Inc. v. uPI Semiconductor Corp. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 651, 659-660.)

The requirement that a party must meet and confer prior to filing a demurrer does not apply to unlawful detainer proceedings. (CCP § 430.41(d).) 

 III.    DEMURRER

A.  A Cause of Action is Stated

In his demurrer, (Redacted) alleges that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. (Demurrer, p.6: 7-8.) He urges that the complaint does not comply, as the 3-Day Notice served was served prior to the termination of the employment relationship. However, the attached 3-Day Notice was served March 18, 2024, which is after the February 2, 2024 termination date. The Court declines to sustain the demurrer on this ground. (See Complaint Exh. 2, Opposition p. 4: 8-16,  CCP § 430.30.)

Secondly, (Redacted) urges that the Complaint is not verified. However, the Complaint is verified. (Complaint p. 10, see Opposition p. 3:18.) The Court declines to sustain the demurrer on this ground.

Thirdly, (Redacted) urges that the complaint was improper as Plaintiffs failed to file a notice for a just cause eviction with the Los Angeles Housing Department 3 days after serving the Defendant the three-day notice. However, (Redacted) does not cite any authority for this requirement, nor is it contained in the statutory requirements for unlawful detainers. (See Opposition p. 4: 16-18, CCP § 1166.) The Court declines to sustain the demurrer on this ground.

The demurrer is overruled.

IV. ORDER

           Demurrer is overruled. Notice of this ruling to be given by Plaintiffs Charles R. Norman, Caroline I. Norman and Cecelia A. Grace, trustees of the Charles R. Norman Family Trust.

Dated:   4/28/24                                                           _______________________________

                                                                                 JARED D. MOSES

                                                                         JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT