Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV27510, Date: 2024-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27510    Hearing Date: January 16, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 16, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants Main Tec USA, Inc. And Oh Hyun Nam

Responding Party: Plaintiff O Y K Properties, LLC

T/R:      DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

DEFENDANT 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

On November 8, 2023, Plaintiff A O Y K Properties, LLC filed a commercial unlawful detainer complaint against Defendants Main Tec USA, Inc. And Oh Hyun Nam.

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.)

Defendants demur to the complaint on the ground that Plaintiff overstated the amount of rent due in the 3-day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit.[1]

Defendants assert that the inclusion of the late fees due on the unpaid rent in the notice renders the notice defective. Defendants cite no authority showing the inclusion of late fees is an overstatement of rent. In fact, at least one case cited by Defendants found the opposite. (Canal-Randolf Anaheim, Inc. v. Wilkoski (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 477, 492 [“It is true that subdivision 2 of Code of Civil Procedure section 1161 relates to a default in the payment of rent. However, the subdivision refers to the ‘lease or agreement under which the property is held’ and requires the notice state ‘the amount which is due.’ The language is not ‘the amount of rent which is due’ or ‘the rent which is due.’ We think the statutory language is sufficiently broad to encompass any sums due under the lease or agreement under which the property is held.”]) Defendants also argue that that the late fees are impermissible liquidated damages. This cannot be determined on demurrer.

Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED.