Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV04559, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV04559    Hearing Date: October 31, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

On September 20, 2024, Plaintiffs Stocker Square, LLC and One Stocker Group, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) filed the unlawful detainer Complaint against Defendant Aleshia Hunter (“Defendant”).  Defendant demurs 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, subdivision (e).  Plaintiffs oppose the demurrer. 

ANALYSIS

                I.          DEMURRER

“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.)

A.    FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION

Defendant demurs on the grounds that the 3-day Notice overstates the amount of rent due.  The Demurrer contains no accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, and merely states that the amount of rent due listed on the 3-day notice is overstated.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2) provides:

When the tenant continues in possession, in person or by subtenant, without the permission of the landlord, or the successor in estate of the landlord, if applicable, after default in the payment of rent, pursuant to the lease or agreement under which the property is held, and three days’ notice, excluding Saturdays and Sundays and other judicial holidays, in writing, requiring its payment, stating the amount that is due, the name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent payment shall be made, and, if payment may be made personally, the usual days and hours that person will be available to receive the payment (provided that, if the address does not allow for personal delivery, then it shall be conclusively presumed that upon the mailing of any rent or notice to the owner by the tenant to the name and address provided, the notice or rent is deemed received by the owner on the date posted, if the tenant can show proof of mailing to the name and address provided by the owner), or the number of an account in a financial institution into which the rental payment may be made, and the name and street address of the institution (provided that the institution is located within five miles of the rental property), or if an electronic funds transfer procedure has been previously established, that payment may be made pursuant to that procedure, or possession of the property, shall have been served upon the tenant and if there is a subtenant in actual occupation of the premises, also upon the subtenant.

Here, the 3-day “Notice to Pay Rent or Quit” attached to the verified Complaint, dated September 11, 2024 outlines the outstanding rent due as follows:

Date Amount Became Due               Amount

09/01/2024                                          $6,350.00

08/01/2024                                          $6,350,00 

07/01/2024                                          $6,350.00

06/01/2024                                          $6,350.00

05/01/2024                                          $6,350.00

Total Delinquent Rent: $31,750.00

            The verified Complaint similarly indicates that monthly rent is $6,350 (Complaint ¶ 6) and Plaintiff requests past-due rent of $31,750 (Complaint ¶ 19).  Thus, there is nothing on the face of the verified Complaint that indicates the amount of delinquent rent is overstated on the 3-Day Notice.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, the Court overrules Defendant’s Demurrer.  Defendant shall file and serve an Answer to the Verified Complaint on or before November 8, 2024. 

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

DATED:  October 31, 2024                                                   ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court