Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV00797, Date: 2024-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV00797    Hearing Date: April 30, 2024    Dept: 8

            Tentative Ruling¿ 

¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 April 30, 2024¿ 

¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                   24TRCV00797

¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Youngkyu Lee v. Eric Floyd, et al. 

¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                 (1) Defendants, Eric Floyd and Wanda Dee

RESPONDING PARTY:        (1) Plaintiff, Youngkyu Lee (No Opposition)

¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                        Not Set 

¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Defendants’ Demurrer

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) OVERRULED

I. BACKGROUND¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff, Youngkyu Lee (“Plaintiff”) filed an Unlawful Detainer Complaint against Defendants, Eric Floyd, Wanda Dee, and DOES 1 through 5.

Defendants, Eric Floyd and Wanda Dee (collectively “Defendants”) now file a Demurrer to the Complaint.

B. Procedural¿¿ 

            On March 18, 2024, Defendants filed a Demurrer. To date, no opposition has been filed.  But on April 18, 2024, demurring defendant also filed an Answer, leading the Court to wonder if the demurrer may have withdrawn or been taken off calendar. 

II. GROUNDS FOR MOTIONS

            Defendants demur to Plaintiff’s Complaint on the grounds that they argue, Defendant’s Complaint is deficient to constitute a cause of action, and failed to follow the proper legal procedure to open an Unlawful Detainer case since Plaintiff allegedly failed to attach a valid proof of service on the notices to quit allegedly served to the Defendants.

III. ANALYSIS

A.    Legal Standard

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) A demurrer “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)¿¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A pleading is uncertain if it is ambiguous or unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) A demurrer for uncertainty may lie if the failure to label the parties and claims renders the complaint so confusing defendant cannot tell what he or she is supposed to respond to.¿ (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.) However, “[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.” (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

B.    Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1170, a defendant in an unlawful detainer proceeding may answer or demur to a complaint. Section 1177, provides that all provisions of law contained in Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure are otherwise generally applicable to unlawful detainer actions, unless other procedures are specified in the unlawful detainer statutes. (Id.) However, the rule of liberal construction of pleadings provided by Code of Civil Procedure, section 452, is inapplicable in unlawful detainer actions because an unlawful detainer is an action seeking forfeiture and is a summary proceeding in which the defendant’s normal procedural rights are limited. Thus, courts strictly construe the statutory procedures that regulate unlawful detainers and require strict compliance with all statutory requirements. (Civ. Code, § 1442; see also Kwok, supra, 130 Cal.App.3d at 599; Briggs v. Electronic Memories & Magnetic (1975) 53 Cal. App.3d 900, 905; Liebovich v. Shahrokhkany (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 511, 513.) 

Here, Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to follow the proper legal procedure to open an Unlawful Detainer case against Defendant when he failed to attach a valid proof of service on the notices served to the Defendants.  Defendants argue that Plaintiff attached invalid proofs of service because they ae allegedly not dated, not named by the process server, and not signed by the process server. However, in the copy of the Complaint in the Court’s digital files, the declarations of service of the Notices to Quit and Notice to Pay Rent or Quit are all dated and are all signed by purported process server Joshua Chang.

            While Plaintiff has failed to oppose this motion, the court file in this case belies the asserted defect on the face of the pleading.  Without more, this Court is inclined to OVERRULE demurrer.

IV. CONCLUSION¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Demurrer is OVERRULED.  The Court notes demurring defendant filed an Answer on April 18, 2024.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.