Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 22VECV02259, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.

Case Number: 22VECV02259    Hearing Date: March 7, 2023    Dept: T

            [TENTATIVE] ORDER:  Defendants Rafael and Emilia Hernandez’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Introduction

            Defendants Rafael and Emilia Hernandez demurred to Plaintiff THR California LP’s (Plaintiff) Complaint for unlawful detainer. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

            Discussion 

            Defendants argued that the Complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations because the three-day notice to pay or quit (NPQ) failed to comply with Los Angeles Ordinance No. 186606, section 49.99.2, subdivision E to the Los Angeles Municipal Code and the Complaint failed to allege sufficient facts in paragraph 7.  Los Angeles Ordinance No. 186606, section 49.99.2, subdivision E to the Los Angeles Municipal Code required service of a Protections Notice with the NPQ.  The NPQ attached as Exhibit 2 to the Complaint did not include the Protections Notice.  Without service of the Protections Notice with the NPQ, the NPQ is shown to be defective.  The Court noted that Plaintiff provided a Protection Notice in accordance with Federal law.  However, the Protections Notice in accordance with Federal law is insufficient to comply with the Los Angeles Municipal Code requirement.  Without an opposition, Plaintiff failed to present any allegations or argument to show that this pleading defect can be cured.  On this pleading defect, there is grounds to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend. 

            As to Defendant’s second argument as to Complaint par. 7, Plaintiff checked the box for paragraph 7.a. to allege that the property is not subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (Civil Code sec. 1946.2.)  The allegation required Plaintiff to identify the specific subpart to show why the property is exempt.  Plaintiff did not identify the subpart but instead stated “Not Applicable.”  The allegation is insufficient to show the subpart that supports Plaintiff’s allegation of exemption.  Again, Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition showed that the pleading defect cannot be cured.  On this pleading defect, there is grounds to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend. 

If Plaintiff appears at the hearing with facts showing that the pleading defects can be cured, then the tentative ruling can be altered to grant leave to amend.