Judge: Randolph M. Hammock, Case: 22STCV17928, Date: 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17928    Hearing Date: August 10, 2022    Dept: 49

Takuma Yamamoto v. George Heinen

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant George Heinen 

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Takuma Yamamoto (unopposed)

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
This is an unlawful detainer action.  Plaintiff Takuma Yamamoto alleges Defendant George Heinen rented the premises at 6969 Woodrow Wilson, Dr., Los Angeles, CA 90068, and has failed to pay the agreed rent.  Plaintiff seeks possession of the premises, unpaid rent, and other damages. 

Defendant Heinen now demurs to the Complaint. The Demurrer is unopposed.

TENTATIVE RULING:
  
Defendant Heinen’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.

Defendant is to file an Answer within 5 days.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

DISCUSSION:

Demurrer

Meet and Confer

Defendant has not submitted a declaration reflecting that the meet and confer requirement was satisfied.

Legal Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.)  When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context.  (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.)  In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice.  (CCP § 430.30(a).)  A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.  (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.)  Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.  (Id.)  The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.  (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)  

Analysis

It is unclear on which particular grounds Defendant demurs to the Complaint.  Defendant argues the Complaint fails to state a legally cognizable claim because “none of the allegations allege a contract or a right by Plaintiffs to file a [sic] unlawful detainer.”  (Dem. 4: 2-3.)  

Plaintiff has utilized the Judicial Council form Complaint (UD-100).  The Complaint reflects that Plaintiff Takuma Yamamoto, an individual, is the owner of the residential premises at 6969 Woodrow Wilson Dr., Los Angeles, CA (“the premises”).  (See Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2, 3, 4.) Plaintiff and Defendant George Heinen entered into a written 1-year lease for Defendant to rent the residential premises for the monthly rent of $7,600.00.  (Id. ¶ 6.) 

On May 13, 2022, Plaintiff posted a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit.  (See id. Exhs 2, 3.)  That notice appears to comply with all statutory requirements.  (See CCP § 1161.)  At the time of posting, the amount of rent due was $47,300.00.  (Id. ¶ 12.)

Plaintiff has not attached the written lease.  A UD complaint normally must provide a copy of the written lease as an exhibit, except for an “action based solely for nonpayment of rent.”  (See Compl. 6(f); See also CCP §§ 1161(2) & 1166(d).)  Since this is the case here, Plaintiff was not required to attach the written lease.

In light of the foregoing, this court finds that the Complaint includes the essential terms to maintain the unlawful detainer action.  

Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.  

Defendant is to file an Answer within 5 days.

Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   August 10, 2022 ___________________________________
Randolph M. Hammock
Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at  Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.