Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV00367, Date: 2024-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00367    Hearing Date: May 16, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

 On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff AWI Fairburn, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a verified complaint for forcible detainer against Defendants Alieu Conteh, Mary Chavarria aka Elisa Chavarria, and Kadjaly Conteh (“Defendants”).

Defendants demur to the Complaint on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10.  Plaintiff opposes the demurrer. 

ANALYSIS

                I.          DEMURRER - STANDARDS

“It is black letter law that a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.”  (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  In testing the sufficiency of a cause of action, a court accepts “[a]s true all material facts properly pled and matters which may be judicially noticed but disregard contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  [A court also gives] the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.”  (290 Division (EAT), LLC v. City & County of San Francisco (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 439, 450 [cleaned up]; Hacker v. Homeward Residential, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 270, 280 [“in considering the merits of a demurrer, however, “the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].)

Further, in ruling on a demurrer, a court must “liberally construe” the allegations of the complaint “with a view to substantial justice between the parties.”  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  “This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.”  (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.)  

In summary, “[d]etermining whether the complaint is sufficient as against the demurrer on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the rule is that if on consideration of all the facts stated it appears the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants the complaint will be held good although the facts may not be clearly stated, or may be intermingled with a statement of other facts irrelevant to the cause of action shown, or although the plaintiff may demand relief to which he is not entitled under the facts alleged.”  (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 639.)

              II.          FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION

Code of Civil Procedure section 1160 provides:

(a) Every person is guilty of a forcible detainer who either:

(1) By force, or by menaces and threats of violence, unlawfully holds and keeps the possession of any real property, whether the same was acquired peaceably or otherwise.

(2) Who, in the night-time, or during the absence of the occupant of any lands, unlawfully enters upon real property, and who, after demand made for the surrender thereof, for the period of five days, refuses to surrender the same to such former occupant.

(b) The occupant of real property, within the meaning of this section is one who, within five days preceding such unlawful entry, was in the peaceable and undisturbed possession of such lands.

Defendants contend that “forcible detainer” is available only in scenarios where the plaintiff is in possession of the property and subsequently the defendants forcibly prevent plaintiff from regaining possession.  But subdivision (a) does not require that the plaintiff be in possession of the premises.  It only requires that the defendants “by force, or by menaces and threats of violence, unlawfully hold[] and keep[] the possession of any real property, whether the same was acquired peaceably or otherwise.” 

Here, the complaint alleges:

24. Defendants have utilized force or the promise of force to prevent Plaintiffs access to the Premises, specifically by refusing to provide keys, and maintaining locks to prevent Plaintiffs from accessing the Premises. The conduct of Defendants as alleged herein was done maliciously, willfully, and with the intent to harm the Plaintiff. On information and belief, Defendants persisted under the erroneous notion that (a) they could gain title once more through adverse possession and (b) the various protections given to tenants during the height of the Coronavirus pandemic would protect them from all efforts to remove them from the Premises. On information and belief, Defendants also perpetrated this conduct in order to specifically harm Plaintiff and its principals due to personal animosity towards Plaintiff and its parent entity.

[…]

26. Defendants, have by means of force and threats of violence, unlawfully held and kept the possession of the Premises.

27. On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendants with the 5 Day notice.

28. Defendants have remained and continue to remain, without the Plaintiff's consent, in possession of the Premises and its contents up to and including the date of the verification of this complaint and are threatening to remain permanently in possession of the Premises.

(Complaint at ¶¶ 24, 26-28.)

            Therefore, the Complaint adequately alleges forcible detainer to withstand demurrer.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, the Court overrules Defendants’ Demurrer to the Complaint. 

Further, the Court orders Defendants to file and serve an Answer to the Complaint on or before June 7, 2023. 

Further, on the Court’s own motion, the Court continues the Case Management Conference from May 23, 2024 to July 16, 2024 at 8:30 A.M.in Department 207.   All parties shall comply with California Rules of Court, rules 3.722, et seq.  In particular, all parties shall adhere to the duty to meet and confer (Rule 3.724) and to the requirement to prepare and file Case Management Statements (Rule 3.725). 

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith. 

DATED:  May 16, 2024                                                         ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court