Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 24STCV17132, Date: 2024-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV17132    Hearing Date: October 14, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

On July 10, 2024, Plaintiffs Joseph Zaritsky and Gail Louise Zaritsky (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed this unlawful detainer action against Defendant Fabrice Camels. On August 5, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Amendment to Complaint naming Deeper Church Los Angeles in place of “Doe 1.”  

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of the premises located at 333 North Mission Street, Los Angeles, CA 90033.  (Compl., ¶¶ 3-4.) On or about October 13, 2021, Fabrice Camels agreed to rent the premises. (Compl., ¶ 6.) Plaintiffs allege that Fabrice Camels was served with a 3-day notice to perform covenants or quit, and on June 25, 2024, the period stated in the notice expired.” (Compl., ¶ 9.) “Defendants failed to comply with the requirements of the notice by that date.” (Compl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, possession of the premises, forfeiture of the agreement, and damages. (Compl., ¶ 19.)

Fabrice Calmels (erroneously sued as “Fabrice Camels”) (herein, “Calmels”) now demurs to the Complaint. Joseph Zaritsky opposes.

In addition, Deeper Church Los Angeles (“DCLA”) demurs to the Complaint. Joseph Zaritsky opposes.

Discussion

A.    Legal Standard

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.)

B.     Demurrer of Fabrice Calmels to Plaintiffs’ Complaint

In paragraph 7(a) of the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that “[t]he tenancy described in 6…is not subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (Civil Code, § 1946.2).” Paragraph 7(a) further alleges that “[t]he specific subpart supporting why tenancy is exempt is (specify):…” (Compl., ¶ 7(a).) Calmels notes that “[d]espite claiming that the tenancy is not subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, Plaintiff fails to identify the specific subpart supporting Plaintiff’s claim in this regard…”  (Demurrer at p. 5:15-16.) However, as noted by Joseph Zaritsky in the opposition, Calmels does not appear to cite any “case authority for the proposition that the specific code section of an exemption need be cited in the complaint…” (Opp’n at p. 2:18-19.) Calmels does not appear to demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state a cause of action because it does not allege “[t]he specific subpart supporting why [the] tenancy is exempt” from the Tenant Protection Act of 2019.

Calmels also argues that “[t]he Complaint is verified by Joseph Zaritsky but not Gail Louise Zaritsky. This is inconsistent with Section 1166 of the California Code of Civil Procedure that requires verification of pleadings in unlawful detainer matters.” (Demurrer at p. 5:21-23.) Code of Civil Procedure section 1166, subdivision (a)(1) provides that “[t]he complaint shall:

(1) Be verified and include the typed or printed name of the person verifying the complaint.”

Calmels also cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 446, subdivision (a), which provides, inter alia, that “[e]very pleading shall be subscribed by the party or his or her attorney.” However, Calmels does not appear to cite to any legal authority demonstrating that Plaintiffs Joseph Zaritsky and Gail Louise Zaritsky are both required to verify the subject unlawful detainer complaint. Moreover, on September 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a “Supplemental Verification of Complaint Filed 7-10-24” which contains a verification of the Complaint by Gail Louse Zaritsky. Thus, it appears that Calmels’ verification argument is moot.

            Based on the foregoing, the Court overrules Calmels’ demurrer to the Complaint.

C.     Demurrer of Deeper Church Los Angeles to Plaintiffs’ Complaint

In paragraph 7(a) of the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that “[t]he tenancy described in 6…is not subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (Civil Code, § 1946.2).” Paragraph 7(a) further alleges that “[t]he specific subpart supporting why tenancy is exempt is (specify):…” (Compl., ¶ 7(a).) Like Calmels, DCLA notes that “[d]espite claiming that the tenancy is not subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, Plaintiff fails to identify the specific subpart supporting Plaintiff’s claim in this regard…”  (Demurrer at p. 5:15-16.) However, as noted by Joseph Zaritsky in the opposition, DCLA does not appear to cite any “case authority for the proposition that the specific code section of an exemption need be cited in the complaint…” (Opp’n at p. 2:19-20.) DCLA does not appear to demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state a cause of action because it does not allege “[t]he specific subpart supporting why [the] tenancy is exempt” from the Tenant Protection Act of 2019.

DCLA also argues that “[t]he Complaint is verified by Joseph Zaritsky but not Gail Louise Zaritsky. This is inconsistent with Section 1166 of the California Code of Civil Procedure that requires verification of pleadings in unlawful detainer matters.” (Demurrer at p. 5:21-23.)

As discussed, Code of Civil Procedure section 1166, subdivision (a)(1) provides that “[t]he complaint shall: (1) Be verified and include the typed or printed name of the person verifying the complaint.” DCLA also cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 446, subdivision (a), which provides, inter alia, that “[e]very pleading shall be subscribed by the party or his or her attorney.” However, DCLA does not appear to cite to any legal authority demonstrating that Plaintiffs Joseph Zaritsky and Gail Louise Zaritsky are both required to verify the subject unlawful detainer complaint. Moreover, as discussed, on September 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a “Supplemental Verification of Complaint Filed 7-10-24” which contains a verification of the Complaint by Gail Louse Zaritsky. Thus, it appears that DCLA’s verification argument is moot.[1]

            Based on the foregoing, the Court overrules DCLA’s demurrer to the Complaint.

            Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Calmels’ demurrer to the Complaint is overruled. DCLA’s demurrer to the Complaint is also overruled. Calmels and DCLA are ordered to file and serve their answer(s) to the Complaint within 10 days of the date of this Order.¿ 

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this Order.¿ 

DATED:  October 14, 2024                     ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court