Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 23STCV18797, Date: 2024-07-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV18797 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing date: 07/09/2024
Moving Party: Defendant Lidia Pacheco
Responding
Party: Plaintiff
Maria Sanchez
Defendant’s
Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint
The
Court considered the moving papers and the opposition. Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED in its entirety. Plaintiff is granted 20 days leave to amend.
Background
This
case stems from a landlord-tenant dispute. Maria Sanchez (Plaintiff) alleges
that Lidia Pacheco (Defendant) committed several unlawful acts while operating
as landlord of 1422 E 58th Dr., Los Angeles, CA 90001 (the
Premises). (Complaint, ¶6.) Plaintiff alleges that she began renting the
Premises in 2004 under a previous owner Angelina Davalos (Davalos). Davalos
passed away in 2017. Thereafter, Defendant became the new owner. (Id.)
Plaintiff
alleges that she has been paying a rental fee of $900.00 each month to the
Defendant. Upon entering the agreement for the rental lease of the Premises,
Plaintiff alleges that she asked the owner if there was anything to be aware of
prior to the start of the lease, to which the owner at that time replied in the
negative. Plaintiff alleges she did not discover the alleged illegality of the
unit until 2023. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
Plaintiff
additionally alleges that the Premises was infested with insects, vermin, and
mold at the time she entered into the lease agreement. (Id. at ¶8.)
Plaintiff alleges that she notified Defendant, but nothing was done, the issue
only grew worse between 2019 and 2022. (Id. at ¶10.) Issues with the
plumbing also arose, and Plaintiff alleges that after giving notice, Defendant
did not respond, and Plaintiff therefore conducted repairs at her own expense.
(Id.) In November of 2019, Plaintiff alleges that there was no gas nor
hot water for a week. (Id. at ¶10.) In June of 2023, Plaintiff alleges
that she was asked to vacate the premises, with no written eviction notice. (Id.
at ¶14.) Plaintiff alleges that no rental contract was ever provided. (Id.)
Prior to this in 2019, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant verbally harassed her
to leave. Plaintiff then filed suit. The Complaint contains the following
causes of action:
1.
Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4
2.
Tortious Breach of Warranty of
Habitability
3.
Breach of Covenant of Quiet
Enjoyment
4.
Nuisance
5.
Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code
§17200 et seq.
6.
Negligence
7.
Fraud – Intentional
Misrepresentation
8.
Fraud – Concealment
9.
Landlord Harassment
10. Constructive
Eviction
11. Retaliatory
Eviction
12. Negligent
and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
13. Violation
of AB 1482 Tenant Protection Act
The
motion now before the Court is Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Plaintiff opposes the demurrer; no reply was filed.
Meet and Confer
“Before
filing a demurrer…the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by
telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for
the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would
resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc.
§430.41(a).) Defendant provides the Declaration of Thomas Shinton Regarding
Meeting and Conferring. The Declaration states that Defendant reached out on
September 7, 2023, but was unable to reach the Plaintiff. The requirements of
Code Civ. Proc. §430.41(a) remain unsatisfied, however, per Code Civ. Proc.
§430.41(a)(4), “A determination by the court that the meet and confer process
was insufficient shall not be grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer.”
Therefore, the Court turns to the demurrer.
Discussion
Legal Standard
“[A] demurrer tests the legal
sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) A demurrer
can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading
under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially
noticeable. (See Donabedian v. Mercury
Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court
may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or
documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].) For purposes of
ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true,
but the reviewing court does not assume the truth of conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2
Cal.4th 962, 967.)
Analysis
Defendant demurs to the Complaint as
a whole and each and every cause of action on three main grounds: (1) the
pleading does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action, (2)
the pleading is uncertain and unintelligible, and (3) that several of the
causes of action are barred by the statute of limitations. The Court agrees,
sustains the demurrer in its entirety and grants Plaintiff 20 days leave to
amend.
A. The Complaint Fails to Properly Allege a Contract
Each of the causes of action are
based on an alleged rental contract with Defendant, however, the contract is
neither provided verbatim, nor attached. (Harris
v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 307.) Moreover,
the legal effect of the contract is not plead. (Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co.
(2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 198-199.) Although Plaintiff does not allege a breach of
contract, without a verbal or written rental lease agreement, none of the
causes of action can survive demurrer.
B. The Complaint is Vague
As to Defendant’s second contention
that the Complaint is vague, the Court agrees. First, several of the causes of
action plead, do not state specific facts, but rather refer back to the section
labeled “Facts”. Second, the Complaint makes clear that from 2004 to 2017, the
owner of the Premises was Davalos. (Complaint, ¶6.) The Complaint also makes
clear that there were issues that began in 2004. For example, both the causes
of action for fraud are based on representations made to Plaintiff upon
entering into the alleged lease agreement in 2004, several years before
Defendant took over. (Complaint, ¶7. Also see Opposition Papers, 31:7-16.) Another example is the issue with vermin which
began in 2004, and apparently was never corrected by Davalos. It is unclear as
to what time periods Defendant, the current landlord, is being sought to be
liable for because Defendant took over in 2017. By this time Plaintiff was well
aware of several of the issues that triggered the pleaded causes of action,
which leads to concerns with the applicability of the delayed discovery
doctrine (explained further below).
C. Statute of Limitations
Finally, Defendant asserts the
defense that many of the causes of action are barred by the statute of
limitations. Plaintiff became aware of most if not all of the issues plead
within the Complaint long before Defendant took over as landlord. Even the
delayed discovery doctrine would provide no assistance here, as to delay the
statute of limitations the accrual of a cause of action occurs when plaintiff discovered
or should have discovered the injury had a wrongful cause. (Lederer v.
Gursey Schneider LLP (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 508, 521.) It is
clear that Plaintiff discovered the necessary elements for many of these causes
of action as early as 2004 (see generally, the Complaint), but only filed a
Complaint with the Court in 2023. Consequently, the demurrer to Plaintiff’s
Complaint is sustained in its entirety.
Leave to Amend
Leave to amend must be allowed where
there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335,
349 [court shall not “sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any
reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment”]. As there is
reasonable possibility of successful amendment, the Court grants Plaintiffs 20
days leave to amend.
Conclusion
Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s
Complaint is SUSTAINED in its entirety. Plaintiff is granted 20 days leave
to amend.
It is so ordered.
Dated: July 9, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court