Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV24788, Date: 2025-02-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV24788    Hearing Date: February 11, 2025    Dept: 34

Defendant Angeleno Homes LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED in part as to the seventh cause of action, and OVERRULED in part as to the first, second, third, fourth, sixth, and eighth causes of action.

 

The court will inquire at the hearing whether leave to amend should be granted.

 

Background

 

            On September 24, 2024, Plaintiffs Sandra Robles, Andrea Leon, Ivan Leon, and Amy Leon (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Angeleno Homes LLC and Diana M. Rivera (“Defendants”) arising from Plaintiffs’ tenancy in Defendants’ property alleging causes of action for:

 

1.                 Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability;

2.                 Breach of Statutory Warranty of Habitability;

3.                 Breach of The Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment;

4.                 Negligence;

5.                 Violation of Civil Code Section 1942.4;

6.                 Private Nuisance;

7.                 Violation of Tenant Antiharassment Ordinance; and

8.                 Violation of Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. C. §§ 17200-09).

 

On October 4 and 7, 2024, the court granted Plaintiff Sandra Robles Application for Appointment as Guardian Ad Litem for Plaintiffs Ivan Leon and Amy Leon.

 

On December 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging the same causes of action against Defendants.

 

On January 7, 2025, Defendant Angeleno Homes LLC filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Sandra Robles and Diana M. Rivera.

 

On January 8, 2025, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Angeleno Homes LLC (“Angeleno”) filed this Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ FAC. On January 28, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On February 4, 2025, Angeleno filed a reply.

 

On January 29, 2025, Defendant Diana M. Robles filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ FAC and Angeleno’s cross-complaint.

 

Legal Standard

 

            “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of” various grounds listed in statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.)

 

            When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) As such, the court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Ibid.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

 

            Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.; Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 226.) However, “[i]f there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend.” (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245).

 

Discussion

 

            Angeleno demurs, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, to the first through fourth and sixth through eighth causes of action in Plaintiffs’ FAC.

 

Request for Judicial Notice

 

            Angeleno’s request for judicial notice is granted. Judicial notice may be taken of “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code §§ 452, subd. (c) and (h).)

 

Meet and Confer

 

            As an initial matter, the court notes that on review of the declaration of Ben Heller in support of Angeleno’s Demurrer, Angeleno’s meet-and-confer efforts were sufficient as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a), and section 435.5(a). Angeleno’s counsel shows that Plaintiffs’ counsel conceded that the meet and confer effort had been satisfied through email correspondence. (Heller Reply Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. 2.) As such, Angeleno has fulfilled the meet and confer requirements.

 

Uncertainty

            A party may demur to a complaint where “[t]he pleading is uncertain,” meaning also that it is “ambiguous [or] unintelligible.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (f).) A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures. (Koury v. Maly’s of California (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

 

            Angeleno demurs to the first through fourth and sixth through eighth causes of action in Plaintiffs’ FAC on the grounds that they are uncertain. (Demurrer, at p. 13.)

 

The court finds that Plaintiffs’ allegations supporting the causes of action pled are not so unintelligible that Angeleno is not appraised of the issues it has to meet and could be remedied through discovery. Accordingly, the special demurrer for uncertainty is overruled. 

 

Standing

 

            “Standing is the threshold element required to state a cause of action and, thus, lack of standing may be raised by demurrer. To have standing to sue, a person, or those whom he properly represents, must have a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he has either suffered or is about to suffer any injury of sufficient magnitude reasonably to assure that all of the relevant facts and issues will be adequately presented.” (Martin v. Bridgeport Community Assn., Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1024, 1031 [internal quotations, citations, and brackets omitted].)

 

            Angeleno contends that Plaintiffs’ first through fourth and sixth through eighth causes of action fail to establish that Plaintiffs’ have standing under the alleged landlord-tenant relationship between the parties to bring their FAC against Angeleno. (Demurrer, at p. 13.) Angeleno argues that Plaintiffs fail to provide an operative lease or the parties subject to that lease which is the basis for the FAC. (Ibid.)

 

            Here, Plaintiffs allege that they “are individuals who are now or have been tenants subject to a written lease in the apartment building at various relevant times as alleged herein during Defendants’ ownership period.” (Complaint, ¶ 2.) For the purposes of a demurrer, all allegations in a party’s pleading are deemed true. If taken as true, Plaintiffs have properly alleged their standing as tenants of the property at issue in the complaint.

 

            Angeleno’s demurrer is overruled on these grounds.

 

4th Cause of Action – Negligence  

 

            Angeleno argues that Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action for negligence is duplicative of their first cause of action for breach of implied warranty of habitability since Plaintiffs allege their first cause of action is based on a breach of duty rather than a breach of contract. (Demurrer, at p. 11.) Angeleno also argues that both causes of action seek tort damages for personal injuries rather than contract damages. (Id., at p. 12.) Additionally, Angeleno contends that both causes of actions are based on the same list of alleged negligent acts. (Ibid.)

 

            The court notes that at the pleading stage it is permissible to plead alternative theories for liability. (Paterno v. State of California¿(1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 104 (“That a given set of facts fortuitously supports liability on two legal theories is not a principled reason to deny a party the right to pursue each theory.”).) “Where the exact nature of the facts is in doubt, or where the exact legal nature of plaintiff's right and defendant's liability depend on facts not well known to the plaintiff, the pleading may properly set forth alternative theories in varied and inconsistent counts.” (Rader Co. v. Stone¿(1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 10, 29.) Thus, the demurrer may not be sustained on Angeleno’s argument that Plaintiffs’ negligence claim is duplicative.

 

7th Cause of Action – Violation of Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance

 

            The City of Los Angeles Municipal Code (“LAMC”) section 45.33 is codified under the Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance in Article 5.3 of the LAMC. Article 5.3 explicitly provides for a private right of action in that “[a]n aggrieved tenant under this article… may institute civil proceedings as provided by law, against any landlord violating any of the provisions of this article and any person who aids, facilitates, and/or incites another to violate the provisions of this article…” (LAMC § 45.35.) LAMC section 45.33 defines tenant harassment as “a landlord’s knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific tenant or tenants that causes detriment and harm, and that serves no lawful purpose…” (LAMC § 45.33) The ordinance thereafter lists sixteen categories of conduct constituting harassment.

 

            Angeleno argues that the property located at 2019 ½ E.76th Place, Los Angeles, California 90001 which is subject to this action is not located within the City of Los Angeles and is instead located in the Unincorporated County of Los Angeles. (Demurrer, at p. 6.) As such, the LAMC does not apply over disputes involving the property at issue. (Ibid.)

 

            LAMC defines “City” as “the area within the territorial city limits of the City of Los Angeles and such territory outside of this City over which the City has jurisdiction or control by virtue of any Constitutional or Charter provision, or any law[.]” (LAMC § 11.01.) After a review of LAMC Article 5.3, there are no provisions stating that the LAMC is applicable in the Unincorporated County of Los Angeles. Additionally, Angeleno provides undisputed evidence that the property at issue here is part of the Unincorporated County of Los Angeles. (RJN, Exhs. 1-5.) It is also important to note that Plaintiffs fail to provide any argument disputing these facts or authority providing otherwise.

 

            As such, Angeleno’s demurrer is sustained as to Plaintiffs’ seventh cause of action.

 

8th Cause of Action - Violation of Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200-09)

 

            To set forth a claim for a violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 (“UCL”), Plaintiff must establish Defendant was engaged in an “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising” and certain specific acts. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200.) “The statutory language referring to “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent” practice (italics added) makes clear that a practice may be deemed unfair even if not specifically proscribed by some other law. ‘Because Business and Professions Code section 17200 is written in the disjunctive, it establishes three varieties of unfair competition—acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent.’” (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180.)

 

            The court finds that Plaintiffs sufficiently pled a cause of action for violation of unfair competition law. Plaintiffs allege that they have standing to bring their cause of action under section 17204 which states that “[a]ctions for relief pursuant to this chapter shall be prosecuted… by a person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.” (Complaint, ¶ 43; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204.) Additionally, Plaintiffs allege the “unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and practices” committed by Defendants, including Angeleno. (Complaint, ¶¶ 44-46.) Plaintiffs then allege the injury suffered and the relief sought. (Id., at p. 47-48.)

 

            Angeleno’s demurrer is overruled as to Plaintiffs’ eighth cause of action.

 

Conclusion

 

Defendant Angeleno Homes LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED in part as to the seventh cause of action, and OVERRULED in part as to the first, second, third, fourth, sixth, and eighth causes of action.

 

The court will inquire at the hearing whether leave to amend should be granted.