Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2022-00004914-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 06, 2024

06/07/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2022-00004914-CU-BC-CTL WILKINS VS NOEHREN CORPORATION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants' Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint (ROA 37) is OVERRULED as to the Complaint as a whole and as to the third, fourth and fifth causes of action, and SUSTAINED with leave to amend as to the first and second causes of action.

As to the first cause of action for failure to provide habitable dwelling, Defendants first assert, as the do with respect to the entire Complaint, that the claim is defective because Plaintiff fails to allege whether the alleged lease between the parties was written, oral, or implied by conduct. Defendants are correct.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(g).) Defendants also assert that claim fails to state a claim for failure to provide habitable dwelling. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(d).) The court agrees. The court construes this cause of action as a claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The elements of an affirmative claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability are 'the existence of a material defective condition affecting the premises' habitability, notice to the landlord of the condition within a reasonable time after the tenant's discovery of the condition, the landlord was given a reasonable time to correct the deficiency, and resulting damages.' (Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1297.) Here, Plaintiff alleges the first two elements. (Compl. at ¶ 9.) Plaintiff also alleges she suffered damages. (Id. at ¶ 38.) However, Plaintiff does not allege that she gave the landlord a reasonable time after her discovery of the condition to correct it.

Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to the first cause of action. (Code Civ.

Proc. § 430.10(d), (g).) As to the second cause of action for breach of the covenant and right of quiet enjoyment, Defendants again correctly assert that Plaintiff is required to allege whether the lease was written, oral, or implied by conduct. The court does not agree, however, that Plaintiff is required to affirmatively plead that the lease did not restrict the covenant of quiet enjoyment. 'It has long been the rule that in the absence of language to the contrary, every lease contains an implied covenant of quiet enjoyment.' (Petroleum Collections, Inc. v. Swords (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 841, 846.) Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained on the first ground asserted as to the second cause of action, with leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(g).) As to the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action, the demurrer on the ground that the form of the contract is not specified is overruled. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(g).) These claims are not based on contract.

As to the third claim for private nuisance, Defendants also assert that Plaintiff has not alleged sufficiently Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3041049  1 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  WILKINS VS NOEHREN CORPORATION [IMAGED]  37-2022-00004914-CU-BC-CTL specific facts relating to the unreasonableness of the alleged interference with Plaintiff's use or enjoyment of the premises. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(d).) Again, the court is not persuaded. Detailed factual inquiry is part of the discovery process; the essential elements of the claim are adequately alleged. The demurrer to the third cause of action is overruled on this ground as well.

As to the fifth cause of action for negligence, Defendants also assert that Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged facts related to the alleged negligence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(d).) The demurrer to this cause of action is overruled on this ground. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the elements of a negligence claim.

Defendants also demur to the Complaint as a whole and to the fourth cause of action in particular on the grounds they are uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) With regard to the Complaint as a whole, Defendant asserts Plaintiff has not adequately alleged the exact dates of her tenancy, including the time and date the lease was entered into. The court is not persuaded the lack of these facts renders the pleading so uncertain that Defendants are unable to respond intelligently to it. Again, such facts can be obtained during the discovery process. The demurrer on these grounds is overruled.

As to the fourth cause of action for unfair competition, Defendants assert the claim is ambiguous, but their argument is unclear. The statute is not limited to business advertising activities, as Defendants suggest. Rather, unfair competition includes 'any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice.' (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.) The demurrer to this cause of action on these grounds is overruled.

Plaintiff may file a First Amended Complaint on or before July 5, 2024.

Once confirmed, this ruling shall be the final ruling of the court and no further written order is required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3041049  1