Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV10749, Date: 2024-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10749    Hearing Date: January 10, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 10, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants Moises Villasenor and Estela Villasenor

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Agustin Arias and Sandra Gomez

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AND SERVE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING. DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS THEREAFTER.

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, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

This is a landlord-tenant action. On May 12, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants, asserting causes of action for (1) violation of Civ. Code 1942.4; (2) tortious breach of the warranty of habitability; (3) private nuisance; (4) UCL violations; (5) negligence; (6) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) negligence per se; (9) CLRA violations; and (1) violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Anti-Harassment Ordinance.

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.)

Under the Unruh Act, “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal . . . and no matter what their . . . disability [or other protected characteristic] . . . are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” (Civ. Code § 51; see also CACI No. 3066.) “Whoever denies, aids, or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction” contrary to the Unruh Act is liable for damages. (Civ. Code, § 52(a).) A violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also qualifies as a violation of Unruh. (Civ. Code § 51(f).)

Defendants demur to the ninth cause of action for CLRA violations on the grounds that it is barred by the statute of limitations, that the CLRA does not apply to real property leases, and that it is uncertain.

Defendants assert the claim is barred by the statute of limitations because Plaintiffs do not plead the dates the claim accrued. Plaintiffs are not required to affirmatively allege a cause of action is not barred by the statute of limitations. The demurrer cannot be sustained on this basis.

The CLRA protects consumers from deceptive practices “in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods or services.” (Civ. Code § 1770(a).) “Goods” are defined as “tangible chattels bought or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, ... including goods which, at the time of the sale or subsequently, are to be so affixed to real property as to become part of real property, whether or not severable therefrom.” (Civ. Code § 1761(a).) “Services” are defined as “work, labor, and services for other than a commercial or business use, including services furnished in connection with the sale or repair of goods.” (Civ. Code § 1761(b).) Courts have held that transactions involving the sale of real property are not “goods” or “services” as defined by the CLRA. (See McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457.)

In opposition, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants engaged in deceptive practices by misrepresenting the habitability of the subject rental property. Plaintiffs do not provide any authority applying the CLRA to rental agreements for real property. This is insufficient to show the CLRA is applicable here.

Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.