Judge: Michael Small, Case: 23STCV19395, Date: 2023-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: 23STCV19395    Hearing Date: March 26, 2024    Dept: 57

Defendants' demurrer to the fifth cause of action in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, which is for constructive eviction, is overruled.

This case arises from Plaintiffs' tenancy at property located at 1375 South Sierra Bonita Avenue, Unit 5, in Los Angeles, California ("the Subject Unit") that was owned and/or managed by the Defendants.  Plaintiffs allege that their tenancy began on July 1, 2017 and ended on February 28, 2023, when, according, to the Plaintiffs, they were constructively evicted from the Subject Unit and vacated the premises.  

 "[A]ny disturbance of the tenant's possession by the lessor or at his procurement which renders the premises unfit for the purposes for which they are demised or which has the effect of depriving the tenant of the beneficial enjoyment of the premises, amounts to a constructive eviction, provided  the tenant vacates the premises within a reasonable time." [Citations.] (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 292.)  Defendants argue that because the Plaintiffs allege in the FAC that many if not all of the disturbances with Plaintiffs' possession of the Subject Unit existed for the nearly six-year span of the tenancy, Plaintiffs did not vacate the Subject Unit within a reasonable time and thus their constructive eviction claim fails as a matter of law.  The problem with that argument is that, for purposes of a claim for constructive eviction, whether a tenant vacated leased premises within a reasonable period of time after the landlord's initial disturbance of the tenant's possession is generally a question of fact for a jury and cannot be decided on a demurrer.  (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 911-912, 926 (reversing ruling sustaining landlord's demurrer to tenant's claim of construction eviction; whether tenant's decision to vacate leased premises three years after the alleged disturbances with possession started was a question of fact for the jury).

Defendants' reliance on Bakersfield Laundry Association v. Rubin (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d Supp. 162, is misplaced.  In that case, the Court of Appeal held that a delay in vacating leased premises of more than six months after the onset of a condition giving rise to a constructive eviction claim is unreasonable as a matter of law.  (Id at p. 165.)   Bakersfield Laundry Association is both procedurally and factually distinguishable.  As to the procedural distinction, Bakersfield Laundry Association was not decided by the Court of Appeal on an appeal from a demurrer ruling.  It was decided on an appeal from a judgment in favor of the landlord following a jury trial.  (Id. at p. 164.)  As to the factual distinction, the disturbance that gave rise to the constructive eviction claim in Bakersfield Laundry Association was a single act of the landlord in erecting a temporary plywood wall that a caused a diminution in the square footage of the leased premises available to the tenant.  (Id. at p. 165.)  Here, by contrast, Plaintiffs allege multiple different interferences that cropped up during the tenancy. 

Defendants also argue that their demurrer should be sustained because a number of the disturbances about which Plaintiffs complain in the FAC were caused by other tenants on the property where the Leased Unit was located and the Defendants cannot held be responsible for those disturbances.   Defendants are mistaken.  (See Andrews v. Mobile Aire Estates (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 578, 590) (a tenant's constructive eviction claim against his or her landlord may be based on actions of other tenants of the landlord].) 

Additionally, Defendants point to concessions by the Plaintiffs in the FAC that the Defendants actually did take steps to address some of the disturbances that Plaintiffs raised with the Defendants.  These concessions do not entitle the Defendants to a demurrer on the constructive eviction claim, however.  The FAC alleges that other disturbances went unaddressed.

Finally, Defendants contend that some of the disturbances alleged in the FAC are not substantial enough to support a claim for constructive eviction.  In the Court's view, whether that is so is a question of fact for the jury.