Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00289, Date: 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00289    Hearing Date: September 16, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 9-16-22 a/f 10-6-22

Case # 22CHCV00289

Trial Date: Not Set

DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Charles Johnson

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Dunn Investment Properties, Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer to the First Amended Verified Complaint for Unlawful Detainer

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On May 10, 2022, Plaintiff Dunn Investment Properties, Inc. filed a complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Charles and Sheila Johnson. Plaintiff alleges rent increased from $7,411 to $20,000/month as of January 1, 2022. Defendant failed to make the lease payments due in March and April 2022, with an outstanding balance of $39,112 as of the complaint filing date.

On June 30, 2022, the court sustained the demurrer to the complaint. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for unlawful detainer on July 6, 2022. On August 2, 2022, the court denied the motion to bifurcate the action.

RULING: Sustained with Leave to Amend.

Defendant Charles Johnson challenges the first amended complaint on grounds that the operative pleading contains ambiguous and unintelligible allegations. Specifically, the caption of the form complaint checks both the complaint and amended complaint boxes, with an indication of amendment number 1. Section 7 also indicates non-applicability to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, yet in section 8 indicates the application of the Tenant Protection Act under “Civil Code section 1946.2(b)(1).” Finally, defendant challenges the ambiguity in section 6.d regarding the rent and disposition of the tenancy after the 65 month lease term.

Plaintiff in opposition contends Defendants violate the successive demurrer rule by raising new arguments that could have been brought in the prior demurrer. Plaintiff also state that Defendants conduct “exhibit[s] a habit of delaying and causing protracted litigation wherever possible.”

The court electronic filing system shows no reply on file prior to the tentative ruling publication deadline.

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law . . . .” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

The Valencia address of the premises indicates the property is located within the County of Los Angeles. The Los Angeles County moratorium for rent deficiencies on commercial property lapsed, thereby allowing a commercial landlord to procced with unlawful detainer. Neither party disputes the propriety of the subject action.

Like the prior demurrer, Defendant again raises argument based on conflicting allegations pled in the operative complaint. Given the ruling on the prior demurrer, the checking of both the complaint and amended complaint boxes, which constitutes a clear typographical error, is not prejudicial.

Nevertheless, consistent with the prior demurrer, the continued invocation of the Tenant Protection Act under section 8(a) again brings in a residential only statute for a commercial property. Plaintiff was not required to check this box, yet continues to reference this section. While Plaintiff may describe the tactics of Defendant as gamesmanship to delay the eviction, nothing in the conduct of Defendant in any way influences the redundant errors in basic pleading standards. Given the technical requirements for unlawful detainer, the court again sustains the demurrer on this basis. This argument in no way violates the successive demurrer rule.

The court also finds the reference to the increase in rent on January 1, 2022 for a 65 month lease that commenced on January 20, 2011 lacking sufficient reference to the lease term(s), including the January 29, 2011 option agreement incorporated as well. The court also finds this argument consistent with the prior demurrer.

The court therefore sustains the demurer with five (5) leave to amend.

Motion for summary judgment set for October 6, 2022.

Defendant to give notice.