Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23STCV18797, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV18797    Hearing Date: February 6, 2025    Dept: 45

Maria Gonzalez Sanchez v. Lidia Pacheco

Date of Hearing:        February 6, 2025                   Trial Date:       N/A

Department:              45                                            Case No.:        23STCV18797

Moving Party:            Defendants Lidia Pacheco

Responding Party:     No opposition

Meet and Confer:      No

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this complaint, alleging multiple breaches of the warranty of habitability, unsafe conditions and intentional misconduct by her landlord, Lidia Pacheco.   On August 26, 2024, defendant filed the instant demurrer to the First Amended Complaint.   Defendant did not oppose the motion.  Rather she filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. That motion is set for April 14, 2025, but is procedurally improper as it does not include a copy of the proposed amended complaint.  

[Tentative] Ruling

The Court sustains the demurrer with leave to amend. 

ANALYSIS

Uncertainty

The court agrees with defendant that the complaint is fatally uncertain as it contains allegations about a prior tenancy and another landlord, which confuse and distort the claims against defendant Pacheco.   Plaintiff must amend the complaint to allege only facts relating to her tenancy when Pacheco was the landlord and to provide greater specificity as to what occurred during that tenancy that she contends is unlawful or in breach of her rental agreement with Pacheco.  

Time-Barred Claims

Each of the claims brought by plaintiff has a specific statute of limitations.  Plaintiff must clearly allege when certain conduct occurred or when certain conditions existed, when she discovered such conduct and/or conditions and when and how she was damaged.   With this greater detail, plaintiff may well establish that as to each of her causes of action, conduct continued into the statute of limitations period, making it improper for the court to sustain a demurrer as to the cause in its entirety.   At the time of trial, the court will instruct the jury as to what findings it must make with respect to the application of the statute of limitations as to each cause of action.  

Fraud

“A complaint for fraud must allege the following elements: (1) a knowingly false

representation by the defendant; (2) an intent to deceive or induce reliance; (3)

justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; and (4) resulting damages.” (Service by

Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1807, 1816 [52 Cal.Rptr.2d

650] [combining misrepresentation and scienter as a single element].)  “Fraud allegations ‘involve a serious attack on character’ and therefore are pleaded with specificity. (Hills Trans. Co. v. Southwest Forest Industries, Inc. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 702, 707, 72 Cal.Rptr. 441.) General and conclusory allegations are insufficient. (Lazar at p. 645, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 909 P.2d 981.) The particularity requirement demands that a plaintiff plead facts which ‘”’”show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.’”’” (Ibid.)”  Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4^th 1462, 1469.) 

Plaintiff is granted leave to amend to more specifically state who made the false statements, when they were made, to whom they were made, and how she relied on these statements.  

Harassment

Plaintiff must allege all conduct by Pacheco or Pacheco’s agents that she contends was harassing or retaliatory.   The current complaint is too vague and conclusory for Pacheco to prepare a meaningful response. 

CONCLUSION

The demurrer is sustained in its entirety with 30 days leave to amend.