Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV05863, Date: 2024-07-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05863    Hearing Date: July 16, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:             Ontiveros v. SM 10000 Property LLC, et al. 

CASE NO.:                   23SMCV05863

MOTION:                     Demurrer to the Complaint  

HEARING DATE:   7/16/2024

LEGAL STANDARD 

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (CCP §§ 430.30, 430.70.) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) A “demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction of instruments pleaded, or facts impossible in law.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732, internal citations omitted.) 

“Liberality 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.) It is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where there is any reasonable possibility that plaintiff can state a good cause of action. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) The burden is on plaintiff to show¿in what manner¿plaintiff can amend the complaint, and¿how¿that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading.¿(Id.) 

ANALYSIS 

Defendants SM 10000 Property LLC demurs to the third cause of action for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. “[E]very lease includes a covenant of quiet possession and enjoyment.” (Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1281.) The covenant of quiet enjoyment is inherent in the tenant's “exclusive right to possession” granted by the rental agreement. (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 291-292.) “Minor inconveniences and annoyances are not actionable breaches of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment.” (Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 578, 589.) “To be actionable, the [landlord’s] act or omission must substantially interfere with a [tenant’s] right to use and enjoy the premises for the purposes contemplated by the tenancy.” (Id.) The interference must be so serious as to render the premises unfit for the purposes contemplated by the lease or which substantially affect the tenant's enjoyment of a material part of the premises. (Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 578, 589-590.)

Plaintiff Ontiveros alleges she is a resident at an apartment complex located at 10000 Santa Monica Boulevard, Management Office, Los Angeles, CA 90067, owned/managed by Defendants. (Compl., ¶¶ 1-2, 8.) On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff entered an elevator at the Subject Building with her two dogs on a leash. (¶ 9.) The elevator door started to close while one of her dogs was still outside the elevator. (¶ 10.) Plaintiff attempted to stop the elevator door from closing, but the sensor malfunctioned, and the door closed. (¶¶10-11.) As the elevator ascended, it harshly pulled on the leash, causing injury to the middle finger of Plaintiff’s right hand. (¶ 12.) Plaintiff also feared for the safety of her dog on the outside of the elevator. (Id.) Fortunately, a bystander observed the incident and disconnected the dog from the leash before any serious injury to the dog. (Id.) Plaintiff’s injured finger was immobilized for several months and is left with a scar and limited mobility. (¶ 13.)

As to the subject quiet enjoyment claim, the complaint only provides the legal conclusion that the “elevator malfunction alleged constituted a violation of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment[.]” (Compl., ¶ 25, citing Civ. Code § 1955.) There are no facts showing how a single instance of an elevator sensor malfunction could “substantially interfere” with Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of her lease. Plaintiff presents no authority that a Defendant’s maintenance of a malfunctioning, common area elevator sensor could be considered a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Plaintiff instead cites inapposite cases discussing the general duties of landlords’ concerning “common areas under its control” without any reference to the covenant of quiet enjoyment. (See Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 675 [discussing premises liability under a negligence theory; disapproved of on other grounds by Reid v. Google (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512].) In the absence of such authority, the Court is not inclined to grant leave to amend.

Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Defendants to file an answer within 10 days.