Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV18689, Date: 2023-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18689    Hearing Date: November 22, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Moving Party: Defendant Yon Lee

Resp. Party:    La Park La Brea B LLC

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, with leave for Plaintiff to amend the Complaint. Plaintiff shall have until the end of this business day to file the amended pleading.

BACKGROUND:

On August 7, 2023, Plaintiff LA Park La Brea B, LLC filed its Judicial Council Form UD-100, Complaint in Unlawful Detainer against Defendant Yon Lee.

On August 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Unlawful Detainer.

On August 17, 2023, Defendant filed her Answer to the Complaint.

On August 31, 2023, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office entered default on “All Unnamed Occupants.”

On November 16, 2023, Defendant filed her Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. In support of her Motion, Defendant concurrently filed: (1) Proposed Order; and (2) Proof of Service.

On November 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Opposition to the Motion.

ANALYSIS:

I.          Legal Standard

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed.” (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064.)

“In deciding or reviewing a judgment on the pleadings, all properly pleaded material facts are deemed to be true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged.” (Fire Ins. Exch. v. Super. Ct. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings does not lie as to a portion of a cause of action. (Ibid.)

A non-statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made any time before or during trial. (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650.)

Because a motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, the procedures in responding to demurrers similarly apply to motions for judgment on the pleadings. (See, for example, Evinger v. Moran (1910) 14 Cal.App. 328, 329.)

II.       Discussion

A.      The Parties’ Arguments

Defendant moves the Court to grant her judgment on the pleadings. (Motion, p. 6:4–5.) Defendant argues that the notice to pay rent or quiet was fatally defective because it demands two different rent amounts and thus fails to strictly comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision 2. (Id. at p. 4:3–5.)

Plaintiff opposes the Motion, arguing: (1) that the Motion should be denied because there is no declaration regarding meet and confer; and (2) that the Court should allow the Complaint to be amended to conform to proof because this is an amendable error. (Opposition, pp. 2:4–5, 2:12, 2:18–19.)

B.      Meet and Confer

Code of Civil Procedure section 438 does not contain a requirement to meet and confer prior to filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings. That requirement is listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 439. Yet Code of Civil Procedure section 439, subdivision (d)(2) explicitly notes that no meet and confer is required regarding a motion for judgment on the pleadings in a proceeding for unlawful detainer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (d)(2) [“This section does not apply to any of the following: . . . A proceeding in forcible entry, forcible detainer, or unlawful detainer.”].) As this is a proceeding in unlawful detainer, no meet and confer is required for this motion for judgment on the pleadings.

C.      The Merits

Unlawful detainer proceedings are “limited in scope and demand strict adherence to the statutes’ procedural requirements. (Stancil v. Super. Ct. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, 390.)

Here, the thirty-day notice to pay rent or quit attached to the Complaint lists two different rent amounts: $31,171.00 and $33,171.00. Thus, the thirty-day notice to pay rent or quit does not meet the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision 2 (“stating the amount that is due”).

D.     Amendment

Plaintiff’s Counsel declares that a corrected thirty-day notice was sent out the same day as the defective thirty-day notice. (Opposition, Decl. Hollenbeck, ¶ 2.) Plaintiff attaches the corrected notice, which is signed the same day as the defective notice and states: “This notice supersedes all other pay or quit notices for this period of time”. (Opposition, Exh. 1, p. 2 [bold and capitalization omitted].) Plaintiff argues that it would be “extremely prejudicial to Plaintiff to be forced to start over when the error was caught immediately and corrected.” (Opposition, p. 3:2–3.)

Plaintiff’s Counsel made two mistakes: (1) initially sending a defective notice; and (2) attaching the defective notice to the Complaint. However, Plaintiff’s Counsel swiftly corrected the first mistake and is now seeking to correct the second one.

Plaintiff meets its burden to prove that “there is a reasonable possibility of amendment.” (Struiksma v. Ocwen Loan Servicing (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 546, 559, quoting Rosen v. St. Joseph Hosp. of Orange Cnty. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 453, 458.) Thus, the Court will allow the amendment.

III.     Conclusion

The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, with leave for Plaintiff to amend the Complaint. Plaintiff shall have until the end of this business day to file the amended pleading.

        The Court schedules a Trial Setting Conference on the amended complaint for Dec. __, 2023.