Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00419, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00419    Hearing Date: September 27, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 9-27-22

Case #22CHCV00419

Trial Date: Not Set

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Jose Lepe

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Angel Corralejo

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer to the Complaint

·         1^st Cause of Action: Unlawful Actions by Landlord to Influence Tenant to Vacate

·         2^nd Cause of Action: Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability

·         3^rd Cause of Action: Breach of Statutory Duty

·         4^th Cause of Action: Breach of Written Contract

·         5^th Cause of Action: Negligence

·         6^th Cause of Action: Unfair Business Practices

·         7^th Cause of Action: Utility Interruption to Terminate Tenancy

·         8^th Cause of Action: Private Right of Action (LAMC 45.35)

Motion to Strike Claim for Attorney Fees and Costs

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Angel Corralejo rents/rented a certain portion of premises located at 12872 Van Nuys Blvd., Pacoima, and described as a 3 bedroom, two bathroom home, subdivided into “multi” rental units. The property is owned and/or managed by defendant Jose Lepe. Plaintiff contends the City of Los Angeles cited the premises for unpermitted use of certain spaces for occupancy and improper construction work. Plaintiff also alleges Defendant improperly terminated certain utility service to the premises for a period of time in 2021.

On January 25, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Unlawful Actions by Landlord to Influence Tenant to Vacate, Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, Breach of Statutory Duty, Breach of Written Contract, Negligence, Unfair Business Practice, Utility Interruption to Terminate Tenancy, and Private Right of Action (LAMC 45.35).

RULING

Demurrer: Sustained with Leave to Amend.

Defendant brings the subject demurrer to all causes of action in the complaint, including Unlawful Actions by Landlord to Influence Tenant to Vacate, Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability, Breach of Statutory Duty, Breach of Written Contract, Negligence, Unfair Business Practice, Utility Interruption to Terminate Tenancy, and Private Right of Action (LAMC 45.35).

Defendant challenges the claims on grounds of insufficiently pled claims. Plaintiff in a tersely worded opposition contends the “complaint was not defective.” Plaintiff otherwise offers no points and authorities or specific address of any argument. The court electronic filing system shows no reply at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff.

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 court finds the arguments of Defendant well taken. The lack of any substantive opposition and conclusive denial of any defects prompts no further consideration from the court regarding the sufficiency of the operative pleading. The court sustains the demurrer with 30 days leave to amend. If Plaintiffs elect to not file a first amended complaint, Defendant may ex parte move for dismissal of the action.

The motion to strike is moot.

Counsel remains attorney of record for Plaintiff until either the substitution of counsel or a successful motion to be relieved—currently scheduled for January 27, 2023.

Defendant to give notice.