Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC07799, Date: 2023-03-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STLC07799 Hearing Date: March 9, 2023 Dept: 26
Meyers, et al. Kemp, et al.
DEMURRER
(CCP § 430.10, et seq.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Carla Kemp’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED AS TO
THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AND SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO THE
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION.
PLAINTIFFS ARE TO FILE AND SERVE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 20
DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiffs Eugene Meyers and Jan Book Meyers (“Plaintiffs’)
filed this action for (1) Breach of California Civil Code § 1950.5
(Security For Rental Agreement For Residential Property); and (2) Breach of
Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment against Defendant Carla
Kemp (“Defendant”) on November 17, 2022. Defendant filed the instant Demurrer
to the Complaint on February 15, 2023. No opposition has been filed to date.
Discussion
The Demurrer
is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil
Procedure section 430.41. (Declaration for Automatic Extension, filed
01/19/23.)
This action concerns a lease agreement between the parties
for the property located at 6125 Bedford Avenue, Los Angeles, California. (Compl.,
¶¶2-3.) Plaintiffs allege they rented the Property from Defendant from February
1, 2018 to July 3, 2021. (Id. at ¶¶2-3 and 10-11.) Defendant allegedly
violated Civil Code section 1950.5 by failing to notify Plaintiffs of the right
to request an initial inspection prior to the termination of the tenancy. (Id.
at ¶¶15-16.) As a result, Plaintiffs were damaged because they did not have an
opportunity to correct deficiencies that Defendant then deducted from the
security deposit. (Id. at ¶16.) Plaintiffs were also damaged because
Defendant deducted from the security deposit the cost of ordinary wear and
tear, damage from prior tenants, and an excessive cleaning fee. (Id. at
¶17.) Defendant also allegedly breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment by
showing up at the Property unannounced, charging Plaintiffs for a plumbing clog
they could not have caused, and allowing periodic disruptions of water and
electrical services. (Id. at ¶¶19-21.) As a result, the value of
Plaintiffs’ leasehold was diminished. (Id. at ¶22.)
1st Cause of Action for Breach of Civil Code section
1950.5
First, the Demurrer confusingly argues that the allegations
for the first cause of action are insufficient because there are no facts
showing breach of the implied warranty of habitability. (Demurrer, p. 2:8-13.) Defendant
does not indicate what connection exists between a cause of action for breach
of Civil Code section 1950.5 and breach of the implied warranty of
habitability. (Ibid.) The Demurrer also argues that the first cause of action
is uncertain because no copy of the written lease agreement is attached. (Id.
at p. 2:14-16.) No law is cited regarding what is required to plead the lease
agreement or why the failure to attach the lease renders the Complaint
uncertain, ambiguous or unintelligible. (Ibid.) Finally, Defendant
demurs to the first cause of action on the grounds that no damages were
alleged. (Id. at p. 2:17.) However, the Complaint alleges that
Plaintiffs were damaged by incorrect deductions from the security deposit. (Compl.,
¶¶15-17.) As before, the Demurrer cites no law regarding what is required to
allege damages under Civil Code section 1950.5. (Demurrer, p. 2:17.) Nor does
it explain why the damages allegations in the Complaint are insufficient.
Therefore, the Demurrer to the first cause of action for
violation of Civil Code section 1950.5 is overruled.
2nd Cause of Action for Breach Of Covenant Of Quiet
Enjoyment
Defendant demurs to this cause of action on the grounds that
minor inconveniences and annoyances, such as are alleged in the Complaint, do
not rise to the level of breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. As
Defendant correctly points out, the breach of the implied covenant of quiet
enjoyment must substantially interfere with a tenant’s right to use and enjoy
the premises for purposes contemplated. (Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates
(2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 578, 589.) Here, the Complaint alleges that Defendant
would appear unannounced at the Property “from time to time,” once charged
Plaintiff for plumbing work they did not cause, “periodically disrupted water
and electrical service” and that Defendant’s gardener “regularly used the water
paid for by Plaintiffs and used gas blowers” in violation of the Los Angeles
Municipal Code. (Compl., ¶¶20-21.) It is not possible to determine from these
allegations whether these actions rise to the level of substantial interference
with Plaintiffs’ tenancy, without specific allegations showing how often
Defendant arrived unannounced, disrupted water and electrical service, and the
gardeners came by.
Accordingly, the Demurrer to the second cause of action is
sustained with leave to amend.
Conclusion
Defendant Carla Kemp’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED AS TO
THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AND SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO THE
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION.
PLAINTIFFS ARE TO FILE AND SERVE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 20
DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.
Moving party to give notice.