Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV24722, Date: 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24722    Hearing Date: May 3, 2023    Dept: 39

Traceena Pennix v. Rochester Regal, LLC, et al.

Case No. 21STCV24722

Demurrer

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Traceena Pennix (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Bahram Rahrovi, erroneously sued as “Brian David Ross” (“Defendant”), among others, on July 6, 2021, for breach of the warranty of habitability and other causes of action.  Defendant demurs to every cause of action, arguing that he lacked authority to act on behalf of the other defendant, Rochester Regal, LLC (“Rochester”), as he was merely a handyman at the building.  Defendant also moves to strike portions of the complaint.  The Court sustains the demurrer with leave to amend, and denies the motion to strike as moot. 

LEGAL STANDARD

“It is black letter law that a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.”  (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  In ruling on a demurrer, the court must “liberally construe[]” the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  “This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.”  (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.)

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a motion to strike the whole pleading or any part thereof.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1322, subd. (b).)  On a motion to strike, the court may: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782.)

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff does not clearly allege that Defendant is the landlord.  To the contrary, Plaintiff alleges that Rochester owned the property, and that Defendant was merely a maintenance worker.  (Complaint, ¶¶ 7-8.)  Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant was a signatory to the lease.  Although Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was a “supervisorial and managerial agent for all the other named and unnamed Defendants,” this allegation is insufficient because it is conclusory in nature and not supported by any actual facts.  Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer with leave to amend so Plaintiff may assert causes of action and theories against Defendant that do not rely on his status as a landlord, or may assert facts suggesting that Plaintiff is, in fact, a managing agent of Rochester.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Defendant’s demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

            2.         Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint within 20 days.  If Plaintiff fails to do so, absent good cause, Defendant shall be dismissed without prejudice.

            3.         Defendant’s motion to strike is denied as moot. 

            4.         The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.