Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV05397, Date: 2025-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV05397    Hearing Date: January 29, 2025    Dept: I

Plaintiff filed this UD case against defendant Dandada.  Plaintiff alleges that it is a member of two entities that own a building as tenants-in-common (collectively, the Owners).  Dandada occupies a space in the building pursuant to a November 20, 2023, Agreement to Vacate between plaintiff, Dandada, the Owners, and two guarantors.  According to plaintiff, the Agreement provides that Dandada would leave by September 30, 2024, but that Dandada failed to do so.  The Owners served a 3 day notice to quit on October 14, 2024, but Dandada did not quit.  Plaintiff alleges that the Agreement allows it to exercise the Owner’s rights on behalf of the Owners.  Dandada demurs alleging a lack of jurisdiction, abatement, and uncerntainty.  Plaintiff opposes.

The demurrer as to uncertainty lacks merit.  The complaint is certain enough.  Dandada knows what is being alleged, and the Agreement is well enough pled.  The demurrer is OVERRULED on that ground.

Dandada also claims plaintiff is not the real party in interest and therefore cannot bring the action.  The problem is that, as pled, plaintiff alleges that it was given the power to exercise the Owners’ rights under the Agreement.  Because plaintiff alleges, in essence, that it is the assignee of these rights, it has standing and the court has jurisdiction.  The demurrer is OVERRULED on that ground.

As to whether the causes of action are adequately pled, the court believes that they are adequately pled.  While there is a Judicial Council checklist form, the court is aware of no authority that requires that the form be filled out to state a claim.  Dandada does not set forth anything that was required to be pled but was not.  The demurrer is OVERRULED on that ground as well.

Dandada claims that the complaint is defective because the 3 day notice was not incorporated.  But it was exhibit 3 to the complaint and was incorporated in paragraph 29.  The demurrer is OVERRULED on that ground.

Dandada asserts that the notice was defective, as was the service.  As to service, Dandada claims that the Owners did not give plaintiff the authority to serve the notice.  As a matter of pleading, though, the complaint is adequate.  The complaint alleges that Dandada had a fixed term tenancy that ended on September 30, 2024.  No notice was required under those circumstances.  (Renner v. Huntington Oil & Gas Co. (1952) 39 Cal.2d 93, noting that a month-to-month tenancy, unlike other tenancies, requires notice be given to end it.  The demurrer is OVERRULED on that basis as well.

Finally, Dandada contends that there is another lawsuit between some of the entities here that will effect this case.  Specifically, Dandada asserts that the instant case is really part of a larger dispute among partners or members of an entity as to who ought to control the entity—and more specifically, the Owners.  The case to which Dandada refers is 24SMCV04785.  The court will inquire further as to that issue.  Dandada is not a party to that case, but on the other hand, if there is a question whether plaintiff really has the authority to evict Dandada on the Owners’ behalf, that could be an issue.  The court has reviewed the other case and it is not apparent that the other case challenges plaintiff’s right to pursue the Owners’ remedies in this UD case.  If any party believes that the instant case ought not go forward because of that case, a prompt motion ought to be brought in that case to ascertain whether plaintiff here can exercise the rights plaintiff claims.  In the meantime, however, given that the other case does not really appear to raise that issue, the court will not stay this case pending some contrary indication from the other court.