Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 22STCV36425, Date: 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36425    Hearing Date: March 17, 2023    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Defendant Felipe Gonzalez’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND   

This is an Unlawful Detainer action. The Complaint alleges as follows.

Defendant Felipe Gonzales dba A&G Quality Truck Body (“Defendant”) signed a lease to rent commercial property at 6007 S. St. Andrews Place, Los Angeles, CA 90047 (the “Subject Property”) from Plaintiff Core Industrial, LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Compl. at p. 1.) Defendant has failed to pay rent, and now owes Plaintiff in the amount of $34,176.40. (Compl. at p. 2.) Plaintiff has served Defendant with the three-day notice to pay rent or quit. (Ibid.)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On November 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint asserting a single cause of action for Unlawful Detainer.

On November 29, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Demurrer to the Complaint.
On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Opposition.

No reply has been filed.  

DISCUSSION 

                          I.          DEMURRER

Defendant demurs to the single cause of action for Unlawful Detainer.

A demurrer should be sustained only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Pro., §§ 430.30, et seq.) As is relevant here, a court should sustain a demurrer if a complaint does not allege facts that are legally sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (See id. § 430.10, subd. (e).) As the Supreme Court held in Blank v. Kirwan (1985) Cal.3d 311: “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. . . . Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Id. at p. 318; see also Hahn. v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 [“A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. [Citation.]”)  

“In determining whether the complaint is sufficient as against the demurrer … if on consideration of all the facts stated it appears the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants the complaint will be held good although the facts may not be clearly stated.”  (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 639.) 

A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1081.) The demurrer also may be sustained without leave to amend where the nature of the defects and previous unsuccessful attempts to plead render it probable plaintiff cannot state a cause of action. (Krawitz v. Rusch (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 957, 967.) 

Here, Defendant argues that the case should be dismissed as after Plaintiff served Defendant with the Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit, Defendant attempted to repay Plaintiff in the full amount. However, Defendant claims that Plaintiff refused to accept this payment.

At the pleading stage, the Court is to take the allegations of the Complaint as true. Defendant has not identified a defect on the face of the Complaint, nor has Defendant provided judicially noticeable material contradicting an allegation of the Complaint. It would be improper for the Court to accept Defendant’s allegations as true contrary to the allegations of the Complaint at the pleading stage.  

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

DATED: March 17, 2023

____________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper 

Judge of the Superior Court