Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23STCV29515, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV29515 Hearing Date: December 5, 2024 Dept: 40
23STCV29515 David Bautista, et al. v. 626 East 5th Street, LLC,
et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
The
first amended complaint (“FAC”) arises from alleged uninhabitable living
conditions in Plaintiffs’ leased residential unit owned and operated by
Defendants. Plaintiffs allege eight causes of action arising from the alleged
conditions and related claims.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Defendants,
Gerald P Salmon, as trustee of the Gerald P Salmon Living Trust (“Trustee”), demurs
to the fifth cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 1942.4 and the
seventh cause of action for violation of City of Long Beach Ordinance No
20-0044 for failure to state a cause of action and for uncertainty.
Plaintiffs
argue that they need only allege ultimate facts. The fifth cause of action is
not alleged against Trustee. The claim for anti-tenant harassment is sufficient
as alleged. Alternatively, Plaintiffs request leave to amend.
In
reply, Trustee argues the FAC does not allege sufficient facts to support the
conclusory allegations.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a
complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt
v. Foundation Health (1995) 35
Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.) In testing the complaint’s sufficiency, the court must
assume the truth of the properly pleaded factual allegations as well as facts
that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded facts. The court
may also consider matters properly subject to judicial notice. (Blank
v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d
311, 318.)
Sufficient facts are the essential facts
of the case "with reasonable precision and with particularity that is
sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and
extent of his cause of action.” (Gressley
v. Williams (1961) 193
Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.) Whether the
Plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant. (Stevens
v. Superior Court (1986) 180
Cal.App.3d 605, 609–610.)
A demurrer may also be sustained if a
complaint is “uncertain.” Uncertainty exists where a complaint’s factual
allegations are so confusing, they do not sufficiently apprise a defendant of
the issues it is being asked to meet. (Williams
v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2; Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(f).)
A pleading is required to assert general
allegations of ultimate fact. Evidentiary facts are not required. (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty
Co. (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 26, 47; Lim
v. The.TV Corp. Internat.
(2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 684, 690.) However, unlike federal courts, California
state courts are not a notice pleading jurisdiction, and notice alone is not a
sufficient basis for any pleading. California is a fact pleading jurisdiction.
Merely putting an opposing party on notice is not sufficient. (Bach
v. County of Butte (1983) 147
Cal.App.3d 554, 561; see Diodes,
Inc. v. Franzen (1968) 260
Cal.App.2d 244, 250.)
IV.
DISCUSSION
The only cause of action at issue in this
demurrer is the seventh cause of action for violation of the City of Long
Beach’s Tenant Harassment Ordinance (“the Ordinance”.) The fifth cause of
action is not alleged against the Trustee, which the Trustee does not dispute
in reply.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated
the Ordinance by among other things, “interrupting, terminating, or failing to
provide housing services required by a rental agreement or by Federal, State,
County, or local housing, health, or safety laws, or threatening to do so, or
violating or threatening to violate California Civil Code Section 789.3.”
(Complaint, ¶ 39.) Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants failed and
continue to fail to make timely and diligent repairs and maintenance, to
remediate hazards and fail to conduct renovation or construction for the
purpose of harassing Plaintiffs. (Complaint, ¶ 40.) Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants have engaged in acts of fraud, misrepresentation, intimidation, or
coercion, by threatening to report Plaintiffs to Homeland Security. (Complaint,
¶ 43.)
The Trustee contends that the pleading
contains a “laundry list” of conclusory allegations without specific facts.
The City Ordinance prohibits numerous
forms of harassment against tenants such as failing to make time repairs and
maintenance, to minimize exposure to noise and other hazards with potentially
harmful impacts, to influence or attempt to influence a tenant to vacate rental
housing through fraud, misrepresentation, intimidation, or coercion, including
threatening to report a tenant to the U. S. Department of Homeland Security. (Ord. 20-0044, Sec. 1, Chap. 8.101., et seq.)
The Trustee argues that the allegations
are conclusory because Plaintiffs did not allege facts “as to what happened,
when it happened, who did what to whom, etc.” (Dem., 6:11-12.) The Trustee does
not cite any authority that requires that level of specificity.
General
rules of pleading do not require that the plaintiff plead evidentiary facts
supporting the allegations of ultimate fact. (Committee
On Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp.
(1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 212; Careau
& Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990)
222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1390 [“It is both improper and
insufficient for a plaintiff to simply plead the evidence by which he hopes to
prove such ultimate facts."].
V.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s
demurrer to Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant Trustee
is ordered to file an answer within 10 days.