Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23VECV00618, Date: 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23VECV00618    Hearing Date: April 7, 2023    Dept: W

JOHN KIM vs COURTNEY RICHARDSON, et al.

demurrer to the complaint

Date of Hearing:        April 7, 2023                                      Trial Date:       None set.

Department:              W                                                        Case No.:        23VECV00618

Moving Party:            Defendants Courtney Richardson and Oriyomi Richardson

Responding Party:     Plaintiff John Kim

Meet and Confer:      No.  

BACKGROUND

This is an unlawful detainer action. Plaintiff John Kim served a 3-Day Notice on Defendants Courtney Richardson and Oriyomi Richardson.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendants Courtney Richardson and Oriyomi Richardson’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.

DISCUSSION

Defendants Courtney Richardson and Oriyomi Richardson demur to the complaint on the grounds Plaintiff does not have legal capacity to sue, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and is uncertain.

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.¿ (Wilson v. Transit Authority of City of Sacramento (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 716, 720-21.)¿In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice.¿(Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)¿“A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not on the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) As such, the court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Id.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.) Before filing a demurrer, demurring party is also required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (See CCP §430.41.)

Defendant has not demonstrated Plaintiff does not have the legal capacity to sue. As noted by Plaintiff, the complaint alleges in Paragraph 2 Plaintiff is an individual over the age of 18 years old and Paragraph 4 alleges Plaintiff is the owner of the subject property. Moreover, Plaintiff has stated facts sufficient to support an unlawful detainer claim and is not uncertain. The complaint alleges Plaintiff served Defendants a 3-Day Notice to pay rent or quit.

The court notes Plaintiff did not comply with the meet and confer requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a). Moreover, the demurrer is not signed by the moving defendants and not by any party to this action.

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to the complaint is OVERRULED.