Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV26225, Date: 2025-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV26225    Hearing Date: January 31, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: January 31, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant Fatemeh Noormohamadi

Responding Party: Plaintiff Ramin Vakilzadeh

T/R:      DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT 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 October 9, 2024, Plaintiff Ramin Vakilzadeh sued Defendants Fatemeh Noormohamadi, Aryell Cohen, and Balboa Biltmore Condominium Association, Inc., asserting causes of action for (1) tortious breach of the warranty of habitability; (2) contractual breach of implied warranty of habitability; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (5)-(7) negligence; (8) private nuisance; (9) premises liability; (10) UCL violations; and (11) violation of LAMC § 45.30, et seq. Plaintiff alleges Defendants allowed Plaintiff’s unit to become and remain uninhabitable via negligent plumbing repairs, causing water intrusions and toxic mold.

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.)

A. Uncertainty

Moving Defendant demurs to the entire complaint on the ground that is uncertain. Defendant asserts that the references to statutes that Defendant allegedly violated are vague. Plaintiff makes several allegations that Defendants violated various local and state house laws. This list does not render the complaint uncertain.

B. Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability and Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

Defendant demurs to the claims for breach of the implied warranty of habitability and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment on the grounds that Plaintiff has not alleged a “substantial defect” and that Plaintiff has not alleged Defendant had notice of the defects and failed to remedy them. As stated, Plaintiff alleges Defendants maintained Plaintiff’s unit in uninhabitable condition by failing to adequately and timely repair water and plumbing problems despite notice from Plaintiff. This is sufficient to allege a claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment.

The demurrer to the claims for breach of the warranty of habitability and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment is OVERRULED.

C. Breach of Contract

“The standard elements of a claim for breach of contract are: ‘(1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) damage to plaintiff therefrom.’” (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.)

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has not alleged the second and third elements of breach of contract. The Court disagrees. Plaintiff alleges performance with the contract by paying rent and Defendant’s breach by failing to maintain the space in habitable condition. This is sufficient to allege breach of contract.

The demurrer to the cause of action for breach of contract is OVERRULED.

D. Negligence, Premises Liability and Private Nuisance

Defendant demurs to the claims for negligence, premises liability and private nuisance on the grounds that Defendant did not breach a duty to Plaintiff and that Plaintiff did not experience any substantial defects in the property. Plaintiff alleges Defendant breached a duty of care to maintain the unit in habitable condition by failing to remedy substantial water intrusion defects despite notice. This is sufficient to allege breach of duty and substantial defect.

The demurrer to the causes of action for negligence, premises liability and private nuisance is OVERRULED.

E. UCL Violations

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s claim for UCL violations fails because Plaintiff does not allege facts showing what specific laws Defendant violated. Plaintiff lists various local and state laws Defendant allegedly violated in the complaint. This is sufficient to allege UCL violations.

The demurrer to the cause of action for UCL violations is OVERRULED.

F. Violation of LAMC § 45.30

LAMC § 45.30 prohibits landlords from engaging in knowing and willful harassment of tenants. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has not alleged Defendant engaged in any willful harassment. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant engaged in harassment by a. Reducing services; b. Failing to perform and timely complete necessary repairs and maintenance required by federal and state law; and c. Engaging in conduct which interferes with the tenant's right to use and enjoy the rental unit, among other acts. Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to adequately remedy defects despite notice. This is sufficient to allege Defendants engaged in willful harassment.

The demurrer to the cause of action for violation of the LAMC is OVERRULED.

G. Motion to Strike

“Any party, within the time allowed to response to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part" of that pleading. (CCP § 435(b)(1).) “The Court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter asserted in any pleading; (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the Court." (CCP § 436.)

Defendant moves to strike allegations listing the statutes Defendant allegedly violated, certain allegations that Defendant asserts are irrelevant and Plaintiff’s claim for $2,950,000 in damages. None of these allegations is subject to a motion to strike. Plaintiff may list statutes that Defendant violated and may allege an amount of damages.

The motion to strike is DENIED.