Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV36299, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 22STCV36299    Hearing Date: February 16, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Demurrer

Moving Party:  Defendant Alexandra Williams

Resp. Party:    Plaintiff LA Park La Brea B, LLC

Defendant’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.

BACKGROUND:

On November 14, 2022, Plaintiff LA Park La Brea B, LLC filed its Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Defendant Alexandra Williams.

On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint for Unlawful Detainer.

On January 19, 2023, Defendant filed her Demurrer. Defendant concurrently filed her Request for Judicial Notice.

On February 8, 2023, Defendant filed her Notice of Non-Opposition.

On February 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Opposition. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s Opposition was filed late.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of: (1) City of Los Angeles Ordinance No. 186585, dated March 27, 2020; and (2) City of Los Angeles Ordinance No. 186606, dated May 6, 2020.

The Court GRANTS judicial notice of these two items.

II.        Legal Standard

A demurrer is a pleading used to test the legal sufficiency of other pleadings. It raises issues of law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party’s pleading. It is not the function of the demurrer to challenge the truthfulness of the complaint; and for the purpose of the ruling on the demurrer, all facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed to be true, however improbable they may be. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 422.10, 589.)

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. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no “speaking demurrers”). A demurrer is brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 (grounds), section 430.30 (as to any matter on its face or from which judicial notice may be taken), and section 430.50(a) (can be taken to the entire complaint or any cause of action within).

A demurrer may be brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. A demurrer for uncertainty (Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f)), is disfavored and will only be sustained where the pleading is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e., cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him/her. (Khoury v. Maly's of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Moreover, even if the pleading is somewhat vague, “ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Id.)

III.     Discussion

Defendant demurs as to the entire Complaint, arguing: (1) that Plaintiff has not complied with the notice requirements that are a prerequisite for invoking an unlawful detainer action; and (2) that the First Amended Complaint fails to state a cause of action because of the executive orders and ordinances enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Demurrer, p. 2:1–2, 2:14–15.)

Plaintiff opposes the Demurrer, stating that notice was served on October 21, 2022 and arguing that the City’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium is an affirmative defense, not grounds to sustain a demurrer.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff.

The First Amended Complaint alleges that notice was posted on October 21, 2022. (First Amended Complaint, Items 9.a.(7), 10.a.(3).)

Further, the Court does not agree that the executive orders and ordinances enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic automatically preclude a complaint or cause of action for unlawful detainer. Laws passed by the Legislature and signed into law trump executive orders and ordinances, and the Court recognizes that multiple such laws have been signed since the enactment of the executive orders and ordinances that Defendant cites. (See, for example, Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1161, et seq., 1179.01, et seq. [“COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act”], 1179.08, et seq. [“COVID-19 Rental Housing Recovery Act”].) Moreover, Plaintiff correctly notes that the ordinance itself states that “[t]enants may use the protections afforded in this article as an affirmative defense in an unlawful detainer action.” (Los Angeles Municipal Code, Art. 14.6, § 49.99.6.)

The Court OVERRULES the Demurrer.

IV.       Conclusion

Defendant’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.