Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 21VECV01688, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21VECV01688    Hearing Date: April 6, 2023    Dept: W

TERRI SIEGEL v. SVETLANA ANGELOVA

demurrer to the first amended complaint

Date of Hearing:        April 6, 2023                                      Trial Date:       None set.

Department:              W                                                        Case No.:        21VECV01688

Moving Party:            Defendant OneRent, Inc.

Responding Party:     Plaintiff Terri Siegel

Meet and Confer:      Yes. (Tsai Decl. ¶¶2-4.)

BACKGROUND

This matter concerns various alleged habitability issues arising from Plaintiff Terri Siegel’s (“Plaintiff”) tenancy at the property located at 5067 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Woodland Hills, California 91364 4 (“Subject Property”) from approximately July 27, 2020, through November 13, 2021. Defendant, Svetlana Angelova (“Defendant Angelova”), Anatoly Valenti (“Valenti”), and Onerent, Inc. (“Onerent”) all owned and/or operated the Subject Property during Plaintiff’s tenancy. (Declaration of Donel R. Lopez (“Lopez Decl.”) ¶ 2.)

On December 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed an unverified Complaint based on the above described facts. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on October 25, 2022, asserting sixteen causes of action for (1) Constructive Eviction; (2) Retaliatory Eviction; (3) Violation of COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act; (4) Retaliation (Cal. Civ. Code 1942.5); (5) Negligent Violation of Statutory Duty; (6) Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability; (7) Breach of Statutory Warranty of Habitability; (8) Breach of Duty of Quiet Enjoyment; (9) Breach of Contract; (10) Nuisance; (11) Premises Liability; (12) Negligence; (13) Battery; (14) Assault; (15) Intentional Inflection of Emotional Distress; and (16) Unlawful Business Practices.  

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendant Onerent, Inc’s Demurrer to the fifth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, fifteenth, and sixteenth causes of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Defendant’s demurrer to the seventh cause of action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Plaintiff requests this court take judicial notice of the First Amended Complaint filed in this case by Plaintiff on October 25, 2022 (RJN 1).

The court grants Plaintiff’s request.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Onerent, Inc. demurs to the entirety of the First Amended Complaint on the grounds the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action against Onerent. 

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.)¿¿ 

Defendant Onerent first argues the complaint does not contain any specific allegations as against this Defendant. Defendant notes only three paragraphs of the entire complaint contain allegations against Onerent, which simply allege Onerent operated as a property manager for the subject property, Plaintiff entered into a residential lease with Anatoly and Onerent, and when Anatoly sold the premises to Svetlana, Onerent stopped acting as property manager for the subject property.

In opposition[1], Plaintiff does not address Defendant’s specific arguments. Instead, Plaintiff addresses each cause of action against Onerent arguing Onerent was an agent of Valenti and therefore, liable as to the fifth and seventh causes of action. Plaintiff also argues they have sufficiently alleged direct violation of nuisance, premises liability, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unlawful business practices.

The court finds a tenant can pursue a landlord’s agent for causes of action based in tort. (See Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal. App. 3d 903, 916.) However, because Plaintiff’s habitability claims sound in contract, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts against Defendant Onerent for Breach of Statutory Warranty of Habitability. (Id. at p. 929.) This defect cannot be cured. As such, the court sustains the demurrer to the seventh cause of action without leave to amend. Moreover, the court agrees with Defendant that the complaint insufficiently alleges the conduct and harm caused by each defendant, including Defendant Onerent. If Plaintiff is alleging Defendant Onerent owes a duty to Plaintiff as the agent, Plaintiff must allege so.  If plaintiff contends Onerent owed a separate duty to plaintiff or engaged in tortious conduct directed at plaintiff, plaintiff must so allege.

Defendant also demurs to the complaint on the grounds the complaint contains judicial admissions that Plaintiff’s interactions were directly with Valenti. Defendant points to Paragraph 17 where Plaintiff alleges they notified Anatoly of the water leaks and Anatoly insisted water leaks were a common issue. Due to the ambiguity of Plaintiff’s complaint, the court finds Plaintiff has not judicially admitted that no cause of action lies against Defendant Onerent.

Accordingly, the court sustains the demurrer to the fifth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, fifteenth, and sixteenth causes of action with leave to amend. Defendant’s demurrer to the seventh cause of action is sustained without leave.  If plaintiff proceeds on the following causes of action -- Constructive Eviction, Violation of COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act, Retaliation (Cal. Civ. Code 1942.5), Breach of Duty of Quiet Enjoyment, Breach of Contract, and Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability -- Defendant Onerent must be omitted from those causes, as represented by plaintiff in its opposition brief.