Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV08738, Date: 2024-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08738    Hearing Date: February 26, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On March 10, 2022, Plaintiffs Michael Gonzalez, April Bran, and Michael Angel Gonzalez filed this action against Defendants Hotel Byron, Frank McHugh as Trustee of the Christine O’Donovan Trust, and Frank McHugh-O’Donovan Foundation Inc.

On November 6, 2023, Frank McHugh-O’Donovan Foundation Inc. (“Defendant”) filed a demurrer.  Plaintiffs did not file any opposition.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant asks the Court to take judicial notice of (1) a July 16, 2008 grant deed conveying the property from Frank McHugh as Trustee to Albany Investment Properties LLC; (2) an August 4, 2008 deed of trust, assignment of rents, security agreement, and fixture filing executed by Albany Investment Properties LLC for the benefit of Frank McHugh as Trustee; and (3) an October 8, 2008 assignment of deed of trust from Frank McHugh as Trustee, granting Frank McHugh-O’Donovan Foundation Inc. all rights and interests in the deed of trust.

The Court may take judicial notice of the legal effect of documents’ language when the effect is clear, but it may not take judicial notice of the truth of statements of fact recited within the documents.  (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 265.)  The request is granted only to that extent. 

DISCUSSION

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)  When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context, accepting the alleged facts as true.  (Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.)  “Because a demurrer challenges defects on the face of the complaint, it can only refer to matters outside the pleading that are subject to judicial notice.”  (Arce ex rel. Arce v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 556.)

A.        The Complaint and Judicially Noticeable Facts Do Not Show That Defendant Does Not Own the Property.

Defendant contends that it never owned the property that is the subject of this habitability action.  (Demurrer at p. 4.)

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant owns, operates, and manages the property.  (Complaint ¶ 6.)  Plaintiffs moved into the property in 2018 and suffered an infestation of bedbugs beginning in March 2021.  (Complaint ¶¶ 14-17.)

The property was conveyed to Albany Investment Properties LLC on July 16, 2008.  (RJN, Ex. 1.)  On October 8, 2008, Defendant was granted all rights and interests in the deed of trust.  (RJN, Ex. 3.)  The legal effect of these documents is the property transfer and deed of trust conveyance in 2008.  They do not, however, show that Defendant did not own or manage the property thereafter during Plaintiffs’ tenancy.

The demurrer is overruled.

B.        Plaintiffs Sufficiently Allege the Terms of the Contract (Ninth Cause of Action).

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs do not set forth the material terms of the contract that was breached.  (Demurrer at p. 5.)  Plaintiffs do not attach a copy of the lease to the complaint.

The standard elements of a claim for breach of contract are (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) damage to plaintiff therefrom.  (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.)  “A written contract may be pleaded by its terms—set out verbatim in the complaint or a copy of the contract attached to the complaint and incorporated therein by reference—or by its legal effect.”  (McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1489.)  To plead a contract by its legal effect, a plaintiff must “allege the substance of its relevant terms.  This is more difficult, for it requires a careful analysis of the instrument, comprehensiveness in statement, and avoidance of legal conclusions.”  (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs allege that they entered into a written contract with all Defendants “for the lease of Plaintiffs’ room in the residential hotel in compliance with California Health & Safety Code.”  (Complaint ¶ 103.)  “Plaintiffs did all of the significant things that the contract required them to do, most notably, payment of the lease price for the Plaintiffs’ room in the residential hotel.”  (Complaint ¶ 104.)  Defendant breached the contract by failing to provide Plaintiffs a habitable room, “as evident by the presence of a bedbug infestation in Plaintiffs’ room in the residential hotel.”  (Complaint ¶ 106.)  This sufficiently alleges the material terms upon which Plaintiffs’ claim is based.

The demurrer is overruled.

CONCLUSION

The demurrer is OVERRULED.  Defendants is ordered to file an answer within 10 days.  (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(j)(1).)

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 26th day of February 2024