Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 24STCV08474, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV08474    Hearing Date: February 24, 2025    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 2-24-25 c/f 12-12-24

Case #24STCV08474

Trial Date: Not Set

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Maria Mercado

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Sirsa La Torre, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer to the Complaint

·         1^st Cause of Action: Negligence

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

·         3^rd Cause of Action: Breach of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 45.33

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiffs Siria LaTorre and Brandon Chinchilla occupy certain residential premises owned and/or managed by Defendant Maria Mercado. Plaintiff alleges habitability issues, including water/weather proofing, and insect and rodent infestation.

On April 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Negligence, Breach of the Warranty of Habitability, and Breach of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 45.33.

RULING: Overruled

Request for Judicial Notice: Granted.

Defendant Maria Mercado submits a demurrer to the entire complaint on grounds of failure to state sufficient facts in support of all identified causes of action. Plaintiff in opposition maintains the complaint sufficiently pleads all causes of action. Defendant in reply introduces new argument representing the subject amended complaint as a “sham” pleading. Defendant additionally reiterates the legal and factual challenges.

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.)

“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; Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139 [“[U]nder our liberal pleading rules, where the complaint contains substantive factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled or plaintiff given leave to amend.]

The court notes the substantively larger amount of legally supported discussion in the reply, including new argument. The court declines to consider the “sham” pleading position raised in the reply. Defendant only raised uncertainty and ambiguity in the demurrer, and allowing consideration of new argument unfairly deprives Plaintiff of the opportunity to respond.

1^st Cause of Action: Negligence

“The elements of any negligence cause of action are duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages.” (Peredia v. HR Mobile Services, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 680, 687.) A duty of care exists as to the landlord to provide habitable premises. (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 918.) The complaint sufficiently alleges a breach of duty and damages as a result of the substandard housing conditions. The demurrer is overruled as to this cause of action.

2^nd Cause of Action, Breach of the Warranty of Habitability: Overruled.

A tenant may allege a breach of the warranty of habitability based on substandard housing conditions under both common law and statutory established standard. The complaint sufficiently alleges the breach of warranty of habitability. (Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 627; Stoiber v. Honeychuck, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d at p. 918.) The demurrer is overruled as to this cause of action.

3^rd Cause of Action: Breach of Los Angeles Municipal Code section 45.33

To the extent Defendant presents two sentences in support of the subject challenge, both of which rely on the invalidity of the first and second causes of action, and the court finds both the first and second causes of action valid, the court overrules the demurrer to the subject cause of action as well.

In summary, the demurrer is overruled in its entirety. Defendant to answer the complaint within 10 days of this order.

The court will concurrently conduct the case management conference and OSC re: Related Case.

Moving Defendant to give notice.