Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV29811, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29811    Hearing Date: January 24, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

            Background

On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff 801 Properties LP (“Plaintiff”) filed this unlawful detainer action against Defendants Kemar Newell (“Newell”) and Debbie Wright (“Wright”) (jointly, “Defendants”).

Newell, in pro per, now demurs to the Complaint. Wright, in pro per, also demurs to the Complaint. Plaintiff opposes both.

Discussion

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. ((Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff's proof need not be alleged.” ((C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.) For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) A demurrer “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)

“A plaintiff may file an unlawful detainer complaint under certain circumstances detailed in…[Code of Civil Procedure section] 1161. Section 1161 specifies a tenant of real property is guilty of unlawful detainer only in specific circumstances, where the tenant: fails to vacate after their termination as an employee, agent, or licensee; is in default for nonpayment of rent; breaches a material term of the lease; commits waste, allows a nuisance on the premises, or uses the premises for an unlawful purpose; or fails to deliver possession to the landlord after having given written notice of their intention to terminate. For a complaint to sound in unlawful detainer, it must allege the tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer under Section 1161.” ((Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, 395 [internal citations omitted].) 

In their demurrers, Defendants argue that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1161. However, Defendants do not clearly explain how they contend the Complaint is purportedly deficient under Code section 1161. Defendants also assert that the Complaint is devoid of allegations that there was a written lease agreement or that Plaintiff is a landlord. In addition, Defendants assert that “allegations of a contract, non performance, or of a breach are nonexistent.” (Demurrers at p. 5:1-2.)

            However, Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that the action against Defendants is for nonpayment of rent (that Defendants agreed to pay per a written agreement), and that Plaintiff is the owner of the premises at issue. Plaintiff filed a Judicial Council Form Complaint for Unlawful Detainer (UD-100). The Complaint alleges that Defendants are in possession of the premises located at 801 S. Hope Street PH03 Los Angeles, CA 90017. (Compl., ¶ 3(a).) Plaintiff’s interest in the premises is as owner. (Compl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff alleges that on or about May 12, 2020, Defendants agreed to a one year tenancy, and to pay rent of $5,930.00, payable monthly. (Compl., ¶ 6(a).) This written agreement was made with Plaintiff’s agent. (Compl.,       ¶ 6(b)(2).) The agreement was later changed as rent was adjusted to $6,420.00 per month. (Compl., ¶ 6(d).) Plaintiff alleges that a copy of the written agreement is not attached to the Complaint because “this action is solely for nonpayment of rent (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161(2)).” (Compl., ¶ 6(f)(2).)

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants were served with a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit, that on August 17, 2022, the period stated in the notice expired at the end of the day, and that Defendants failed to comply with the requirements of the notice by that date. (Compl.,          ¶ 9(a)-(b).) Plaintiff alleges that at the time the 3-day notice to pay rent or quit was served, the amount of rent due was $25,680.00. (Compl., ¶ 12.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court does not find that Defendants have demonstrated that the Complaint is subject to demurrer. Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrers to the Complaint are overruled.

            Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ demurrers to the Complaint are overruled. Defendants are ordered to file and serve answers to the Complaint within 5 days of the date of this Order.¿ 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this Order.¿ 

DATED:  January 24, 2024                            ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court