Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV17679, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV17679    Hearing Date: August 26, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 26, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Cross-Complaint

Moving Party: Cross-Defendants David F. Turicos, et al.

Responding Party: None

T/R:     CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO THE FIRST, SECOND AND FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION IS OVERRULED.

CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION IS SUSTAINED.

CROSS-COMPLAINANTS TO FILE AND SERVE A FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT WITHIN 10 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING. CROSS-DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE WITHIN 10 DAYS THEREAFTER.

CROSS-DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

            The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

BACKGROUND

This is a landlord-tenant action. Plaintiff tenants filed a complaint against Defendant landlords for habitability and LAMC violations. On October 12, 2021, Landlords filed a cross-complaint against tenants and Cross-Defendant Corey Sims for declaratory relief, indemnity and contribution, negligence, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and conversion.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it.  (CCP § 430.50(a).)  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)  The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Id. at 732-33.)  The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Id. at 733.)

Cross-Defendant/Plaintiff tenants demur to the first through fourth causes of action in the cross-complaint on the ground that Cross-Complainants have failed to allege sufficient facts.

Cross-Complainants allege they did not have a landlord-tenant relationship with Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs’ landlord actually was Sims, from whom Cross-Complainants bought the property. Cross-Complainants seek declaratory relief regarding rights and obligations of the parties with respect to ownership and rental of the subject property. Cross-Complainants also seek contribution for any damages incurred by Plaintiffs on the ground that Plaintiffs barred Cross-Complainants from entering the property to inspect and perform repairs. Cross-Complainants allege Plaintiffs breached a legal duty to Cross-Complainants by failing to allow Cross-Complainants onto the property and to notify Cross-Complainants of the condition of the property.

Treating the factual allegations in the cross-complaint as true, as the Court must, Cross-Complainants sufficiently have alleged the first, second and fourth causes of action for declaratory relief, contribution, and negligence. Cross-Complainants do not allege any facts showing they are entitled to indemnity from Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants.

Cross-Defendants’ demurrer to the first, second and fourth causes of action is OVERRULED. Cross-Defendants’ demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED.