Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 23STCV22709, Date: 2024-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22709    Hearing Date: February 26, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     February 26, 2024                 TRIAL DATE: March 19, 2024

CASE:                         Susan Talman v. Isabel Chavez, et al.

CASE NO.:                 23STCV22709           

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Isabel Chavez and Josefina Torres

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 2/21/24

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an unlawful detainer action for nonpayment of rent that was filed on September 19, 2023.

Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

            Dismissal is entered this date as to all Defendants with prejudice.

DISCUSSION:

Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings.

Legal Standard

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is the functional equivalent to a general demurrer.  (Lance Camper Mfg. Corp. v. Republic Indemnity Co. of Am. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 194, 198).  Like demurrers, motions for judgment on the pleadings challenge the legal sufficiency of the allegations, not their veracity.  (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994). Any defects must either appear on the face of the pleading, or else be taken by judicial notice.  (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-22).  The parties’ ability to prove their respective claims is of no concern.  (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 99.)  Though the Court must accept the allegations of the complaint and answer as true (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (2000) 24 Cal.4th 468, 515), it will not do so for “conclusions of law or fact, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or [judicially noticed] facts…” (Stevenson Real Estate Servs., Inc. v. CB Richard Ellis Real Estate Servs., Inc. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1219-20). There is no meet and confer requirement for a motion for judgment on the pleadings in an action for unlawful detainer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 439(d).)

Timing

           A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be brought by a defendant at any time after the time to demur has expired and an answer has been filed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438(f)). Unless a court orders otherwise, a motion for judgment on the pleadings may not be made after entry of a pre-trial conference order, (Cal. Rules of Court 3.720-3.730) or 30 days before the initial trial date, whichever is later. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438(e). No pre-trial conference order was entered in this case, and the motion was filed more than 30 days before the initial trial date.

Analysis

            Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the 15-day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit that is the basis for this unlawful detainer action is defective because (1) the Notice overstates the rent due and (2) because it does not contain language required by the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act.

“The established rule is that, where the right to a forfeiture is created by contract or by law, ‘it has always been considered that it was necessary to restrain it to the most technical limits of the terms and conditions upon which the right is to be exercised.’” (Downing v. Cutting Packing Co. (1920) 183 Cal. 91, 95.) Put differently, unlawful detainer statutes are strictly construed, and “every intendment and presumption is against the person seeking to enforce the forfeiture.” (Horton-Howard v. Payton (1919) 44 Cal.App. 108, 112.) “Because of the summary nature of an unlawful detainer action, a notice is valid only if the lessor strictly complies with the statutorily mandated notice requirements.” (Bevill v. Zoura (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 694, 697 [internal citations omitted].) Valid notice is a prerequisite to an unlawful detainer action. (See Kwok v. Bergren (1982) 130 Cal. App. 3d 596, 599-600 [citing Lawrence Barker, Inc. v. Briggs (1952) 39 Cal.2d 654, 661].)

1.      Overstated Rent

Defendants state that the notice is defective because it does not state the proper amount of rent due as required by statute. A tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent when the tenant “continues in possession . . . after default in the payment of rent . . . and three days’ notice . . . in writing, requiring its payment, stating the amount which is due. . . shall have been served upon him or her.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1161(2).) A notice to pay rent or quit which overstates the amount due is defective. (See, e.g., Nourafchan v. Miner (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 746, 753.)

Defendants state that the Notice overstates the amount of rent due by $7,500. Both the Notice and the Complaint state that Defendants agreed to pay $1,500 per month in rent. (See Complaint ¶ 6(2); Exh. 2.) Both the Complaint and the Notice also claim that the total rent due was $43,500. (Complaint ¶ 12, Exh.2). However, the Notice only states that there are 24 months of rent outstanding: 19 months from March 1, 2020 through September 1, 2021 at $1,500 per month, and $7,500 total for the five-month period from April 1, 2023 through August 31, 2023. (Complaint Exh. 2.) This is equivalent to 24 months of rent at a rate of $1,500, which is a total of $36,000 in rent, not $43,500. Defendants, therefore, are correct in asserting that the Notice overstates the amount of rent due. For that reason alone, the Complaint is incurably defective, and Defendants are entitled to judgment on the pleadings.

2.      Compliance with COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act

Defendants also argue that the Notice does not comply with the COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act because it does not contain any of the required warnings or notice required under the Act. Any notice demanding payment of rent that came due between March 1, 2020, and September 30, 2021 must contain additional language advising the tenant of their rights under the statute. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1179.02(a), (c); 1179.03(a).) As relevant here, the notice:

shall advise the tenant that the tenant cannot be evicted for failure to comply with the notice if the tenant delivers a signed declaration of COVID-19-related financial distress to the landlord on or before the date that the notice to pay rent or quit or notice to perform covenants or quit expires, by any of the methods specified in subdivision (f).

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1179.03(b)(3). The statute sets forth the specific language that must be included when giving this notice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1179.03(b)(4).) This language is not present in the 15-day Notice attached to the Complaint, and there is no mention of a declaration of financial distress. (Complaint Exh. 2.) The Complaint is therefore also defective on this basis, and Defendants are entitled to judgment on the pleadings.

Leave to Amend

            When a demurrer is sustained, the Court determines whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318).  When a plaintiff “has pleaded the general set of facts upon which his cause of action is based,” the court should give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint, since plaintiff should not “be deprived of his right to maintain his action on the ground that his pleadings were defective for lack of particulars.” (Reed v. Norman (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 892, 900.) Accordingly, California law imposes the burden on the plaintiffs to demonstrate how they can amend their pleadings to state their claims against a defendant.  (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) “Denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion unless the complaint shows on its face it is incapable of amendment.  [Citation.]  Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given." (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227.)

            As the deficiencies in the Complaint arise from legal defects in the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit that is a prerequisite to maintaining this unlawful detainer action, it is not possible to cure the Complaint by amendment. Leave to amend is not proper in this instance.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED.

            Dismissal is entered this date as to all Defendants with prejudice.

            Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  February 26, 2024                              ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.