Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV04014, Date: 2025-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV04014    Hearing Date: May 22, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

This case arises from a dispute between landlord and tenant. 

Plaintiff Heather Ogren (“Plaintiff”) originally sued Defendant Laguna Del Rey LLC (“Defendant”) on August 19, 2024.  The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleges ten causes of action as follows:

(1)    Breach of Contract and/or Warranty

(2)    Breach of the Warranty of Habitability

(3)    Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment

(4)    Fraud – Misrepresentation; Fraud in the Inducement; Constructive Fraud and Concealment

(5)    Collection of Illegal Rent

(6)    Collection of Excess Rent

(7)    Violation of California Civil Code section 1942.4

(8)    Violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200

(9)    Violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 151.10 (Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance)

(10) Unjust Enrichment

            The crux of Plaintiff’s Complaint is that Defendant failed to register the rental unit with the Rent Stabilization Board or obtain a certificate that the rental unit was fit for occupancy.

Defendant now demurs to all ten causes of action on the grounds that they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and are uncertain, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f), respectively.  Defendant also moves to strike the following from the SAC:

·       Paragraph 31: the sentence, “Plaintiff asserts that such actions and omissions by the Defendants constitute a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”  (SAC, ¶ 31.)

·       Prayer for relief, Paragraph 55, subsection 2: Plaintiff’s Prayer for punitive damages. (SAC, Prayer for Relief, ¶ 55, subsection 2.)

Plaintiff opposes both motions and Defendant replies.

MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENT

            Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a) requires that “Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, 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.” 

The code further requires “As part of the meet and confer process, the demurring party shall identify all of the specific causes of action that it believes are subject to demurrer and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(1), emphasis added.)  “The party who filed the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer shall provide legal support for its position that the pleading is legally sufficient or, in the alternative, how the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer could be amended to cure any legal insufficiency.”  (Ibid.)

“The parties shall meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).)  “The demurring party shall file and serve with the demurrer a declaration stating either” how the parties met and conferred, or that the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer failed to respond to the meet and confer request.  (Id. at subd. (a)(3).) 

Here, Plaintiff argues that the first grounds upon which Defendant demurs—that Plaintiff’s action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations—was not discussed in any meet and confer before the filing of the demurrer. 

In reply, Defendant indicates that it did discuss the statute of limitations issue with Plaintiff by telephone on February 24, 2025.  However, it appears to the Court that there is still some confusion between the parties about the statute of limitations issue and a further meet and confer may provide needed clarity, both for the parties and the Court.

Therefore, the Court continues the hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike to enable the parties to properly meet and confer, and stipulate to the filing of a third amended complaint, if appropriate. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Because the parties did not meet and confer regarding all grounds for Defendant’s demurrer, the Court continues the hearing to June 26, 2025 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 207 to enable the parties to properly meet and confer regarding Defendant’s statute of limitations argument and file a third amended complaint, if appropriate.

Further, on or before June 18, 2025, the parties shall file and serve Supplemental Declarations addressing compliance with the meet and confer requirement under the code. 

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

DATED:  May 22, 2025                                                         ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court