Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 22SMCV01381, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01381    Hearing Date: May 10, 2023    Dept: R

Plaintiff brings a wrongful eviction action against defendant.  Plaintiff alleges that on January 14, 2019, the parties entered into an oral agreement whereby plaintiff would lease a bedroom from defendant for $1400/month.  The lease was allegedly modified so that plaintiff also leased the loft and the rent increased to $1800.  Plaintiff then left for Morocco in July 2021 and paid advance rent through the end of January 2022.  But plaintiff purportedly learned that while he was gone, defendant rented out part of the space to a third party.  Plaintiff states that he only realized this when defendant accidentally forwarded a text to him indicating that defendant was double-renting.  When plaintiff told defendant that he was aware of the double-renting, plaintiff claims defendant began harassing him by entering his bedroom without prior notice and when he was not present.  Defendant also allegedly increased the security deposit to $3600.  On May 1, 2022, defendant changed the locks and the garage code.  Plaintiff therefore sues for wrongful eviction.  Defendant demurs, and plaintiff opposes.

Defendant contends that plaintiff lacks standing because certain contract terms are not adequately set out.  But defendant overstates the law.  First, that would not go to standing.  Second, given that this is an oral contract, the terms can only be set forth with some generality—an exact quotation is often not feasible and is not required.  And defendant has not set forth any important term that seems to have been left out.  While it is true that plaintiff suggests that the rent was for exclusive use but does not plead that expressly, it is at least a reasonable inference that if things like a bedroom are being sublet, the use is exclusive.  The court would feel differently if the allegation were that defendant walked into the kitchen.

Defendant also demurs on the statute of frauds.  But the statute of frauds does not govern all subleases; only certain types.  Generally, a sublease that could not be performed in a year could be subject to the statute, but an indefinite one (like a month to month sublease) would not be subject to the statute of frauds.  And, in any event, where plaintiff has fully performed (such as paying advance rent), that is sufficient to overcome the statute for pleading purposes. 

Defendant complains that plaintiff has not alleged certain facts for each cause of action.  But that is not required.  Incorporation by reference is sufficient.  Nor is plaintiff required to allege evidentiary facts or more than is necessary in terms of ultimate facts sufficient to support the cause of action.

The issues regarding punitive damages are not properly before the court by way of a demurrer.  That must be alleged by way of a separate motion to strike, which is not before the court.  If it were, the court would likely deny the motion.

The demurrer is therefore OVERRULED.  Defendant has 20 days to answer.