Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMUD00670, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 22CMUD00670 Hearing Date: September 30, 2022 Dept: A
22CMUD00670
Gene Matthews v. Robert Dixon, et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
This is an unlawful detainer
action based on a three-day notice to pay rent or quit concerning residential
real property. Plaintiff sues for past-due rent of $8,550 and for forfeiture of
the rental agreement.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Defendants argue they are entitled
to judgment on the pleadings since the three-day notice does not identify a
“person” to whom Defendants were required to pay rent in order to avoid
forfeiture. Landlords are required to
identify the person to whom rental payments can be made as well as the address
where such payments can be sent.
In opposition, Plaintiff argues
that Defendants contracted to lease the premises from their property manager,
Infinity Property Management (“Infinity”). They paid rent to Infinity and were
advised by Infinity of Los Angeles County’s approval of Defendants’ application
or Covid-19 rent relief assistance. The lack of an individual identified in the
notice does not create confusion or render the notice defective.
The court’s file does not reflect
that Defendants filed a reply brief as of this writing (September 26, 2022).
Trial is presently set for September 30, 2022.
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
The two statutory grounds for a
defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is either that the court does
not have jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action or the complaint
does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that
defendant. Code Civ. Proc., § 438 subd. (c)(B). A motion for
judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer and
attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters subject
to judicial notice. Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123
Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064. For the purposes of this motion, all properly alleged
material facts are deemed true as well as all facts that may be implied or
inferred from those expressly alleged. Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.
IV.
DISCUSSION
To be effective, the three-day
notice to pay rent or quit must be in writing, state the amount due, “the
name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent payment
shall be made.” Code Civ.
Proc., § 1161 subp. (2). A three-day
notice to pay rent or quit “is valid and enforceable only if the lessor
strictly complies with the specifically described notice conditions." Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2015) 242
Cal.App.4th 607, 611.
Defendants’ contention that an
individual person versus an entity must be identified in the notice is not
supported. The statute requires that if payment is to be made personally (in
person), the notice must state the usual days and hours “that person” will be
available to receive payment. Code Civ. Proc., § 1161 subp. 2. The conditional
clause starting with “if payment may be made personally” sets forth the
additional information required “if the landlord is willing to allow the rent
to be personally delivered.” Hsieh v. Pederson (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1. However, if the notice does not allow for personal delivery, 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, … .” Id.
The latter part of the section does not require that the “owner” be an
individual human being.
The purpose of the three-day
notice to pay rent or quit is to give the tenant the opportunity to pay the
rent and retain possession. Lamanna v. Vognar (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th Supp. 4, 7. The notice must provide “clear
payment instructions so the tenant can easily and timely remit the unpaid rent
and avoid an unwanted forfeiture.” Lee v. Kotyluk (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 719, 731. Moreover, “any written
demand is sufficient if the person to whom it is given, as a person of common
understanding, must understand from it that the landlord is absolutely and
unconditionally demanding of him possession of the demised premises.” Lee v. Kotyluk (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 719, 731.
The notice served on Defendants
required payment to be made and delivered to Infinity at the address specified,
and includes Infinity’s telephone number and dates and time of availability.
Complaint, .pdf page 5. The parties’ rental agreement identifies Infinity as
the landlord/lessor/agent to whom all rental payments were required to be made,
its address, and dates and times of availability. Complaint, .pdf page 7.
Defendants have not established how the failure to identify an individual
versus an entity that has been consistently identified as the party to receive
rental payments renders the notice unclear or prevents the tenant from “easily
and timely remit[ting] the unpaid rent” to avoid forfeiture. Lee at 731.
V.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing,
Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleading is DENIED.