Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 25STUD03019, Date: 2025-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STUD03019    Hearing Date: May 15, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: May 15, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint for Unlawful Detainer

Moving Party: Defendant Lux Angeles Studios, LLC

Responding Party: Unopposed

T/R:     THE DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER IS SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

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

BACKGROUND

 On March 14, 2025, Plaintiff Nahmi, LLC filed a Verified Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Defendants Lux Angeles Studios, LLC; George Lambriodes, Lenny Vitulli, and Matthew.  

ANALYSIS

“The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.)¿¿ 

“A¿demurrer¿tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint.” (Ivanoff v. Bank of America, N.A.¿(2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725.) The Court looks to whether “the complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Id.) The Court does not “read passages from a complaint in isolation; in reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we read the complaint ‘as a whole and its parts in their context.’ [Citation.]” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 804.) The Court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of which judicial notice has been taken.” (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.) “The court does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.]” (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)¿¿ 

Defendant Lux Angeles Studios argues that: (1) the Complaint fails to properly allege Plaintiff’s capacity to sue and (2) Complaint is uncertain as to the manner and method of service of the Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit.

1.    Capacity to Sue

When a business entity is a plaintiff, the complaint must specify the entity type. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1165.) A business entity plaintiff also must allege compliance with all licensing requirements to do business in California. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17918.)

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a business organization/entity authorized to do business and doing business within the State of California, County of Los Angeles. (Compl., ¶1.) But the complaint does not explicitly allege that Plaintiff is a limited liability company (“LLC”). (Id. at pp. 1-2.) Also, the complaint does not allege that Plaintiff is a duly organized and existing business entity under the laws of the State of California and is in compliance with all licensing requirements as set forth in the Business & Professions Code.

2.    Service of Three-Day Notice

A complaint for unlawful detainer must specifically states “the method used to serve the defendant with the notice or notices of termination upon which the complaint is based. This requirement may be satisfied by using and completing all items relating to service of the notice or notices in an appropriate Judicial Council form complaint, or by attaching a proof of service of the notice or notices of termination served on the defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1166(a)(5).)

The complaint alleges that on August 26, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendants with a 3-Day Notice to Pay rent or Quit by posting in a conspicuous place at 1952 N. Cahuenga Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90068. (Compl., ¶8, Exs. 2-3.) But the proof of service attached as Exhibit 2 suggests that Defendants were served on March 6, 2025. It is unclear from the complaint when the Notice was served on Lux.

The demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND.