Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV02303, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02303    Hearing Date: October 31, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.      INTRODUCTION

          On October 5, 2023, plaintiff Glenn Marquart (“Marquart”), as trustee of the Arnt Marquart Trust and Marquart Family Trust, and Dansk Investment LLC (“Dansk”) filed this action against Mintwood Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mintwood”), Milad Naguib Tossoun, and Nancy Elias for breach of contract and account stated. On April 2, 2024, Mintwood filed a cross-complaint against Marquart and Dansk (collectively, “Cross-Defendants”) for negligence and breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment.

          On June 18, 2024, Cross-Defendants filed this demurrer to Mintwood’s cross-complaint on the grounds that it failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action.   On October 18, 2024, Mintwood filed an opposition brief. No reply brief is on file with the Court.

II.     LEGAL STANDARDS

A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially noticed. [Citation.]” (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 [“the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].) Allegations are to be liberally construed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) In construing the allegations, the court is to give effect to specific factual allegations that may modify or limit inconsistent general or conclusory allegations. (Financial Corporation of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3rd 764, 769.)

III.    DISCUSSION

          Mintwood alleges that in its lease agreement with Cross-Defendants, Cross-Defendants are required to “maintain all bearing and exterior walls in a safe and secure manner” and this requirement includes “the interior demising walls between the individual units.” (XC, ¶ 7.) Mintwood alleges that at all relevant times, the commercial spaces on either side of its leased space were vacant and under the sole control of Cross-Defendants. (XC, ¶ 9.) Criminal activities in these vacant spaces resulted in vandalism and theft when unknown persons gained entrance into the vacant units and broke through the interior wall into Mintwood’s pharmacy. (Ibid.) These break-ins occurred in June 2019, July 2022, and December 2022 by breaking holes . (Id.) Mintwood claims that this criminal activity constructively forced it out of business and that Cross-Defendants failed to secure those spaces from criminal activity. (XC, ¶ 8.)  

Cross-Defendants argue that they, as the commercial landlords of the building leased by Mintwood, owed no duty to Mintwood to provide any form of security. (Demurrer, pp. 6-9.) Cross-Defendants argue that there are no allegations that they had any notice of prior criminal activities or that the activities occurred in common areas.

As Mintwood notes in its opposition brief, the lease between Mintwood and Cross-Defendants requires Cross-Defendants to “maintain, in good condition . . . [the] structural parts of the building and other improvements in which the premises are located, which structural parts include only the foundations, bearing and exterior walls (excluding glass and doors), subflooring and roof and the heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning units servicing the premises.” (XC, Lease, ¶ 8.) Therefore, the Court finds that Mintwood’s Cross-Complaint is sufficiently pleaded because it alleges that: (1) the criminal activity originated from space under Cross-Defendants’ control as a result of  Cross-Defendant’s failure to “maintain all bearing and exterior walls sufficient to resist criminal break-in activities” and (2) previous incidents in 2019 and 2022 were reported to Cross-Defendants which provided notice of the need to improve security measures for the vacant spaces adjoining Mintwood’s business. (XC, ¶¶ 9, 15.)

Cross-Defendants also argue that Mintwood was never actually or constructively evicted. (Demurrer, p. 109.) However, possession is not the only aspect of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment; the implied covenant “insulates the tenant against any act or omission on the part of the landlord . . . which interferes with a tenant’s right to use and enjoy the premises for the purposes contemplated by the tenancy.” (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 512.) Here, Mintwood adequately alleges that Cross-Defendants’ failure to maintain the security of the premises they controlled prevented Mintwood from continuing its pharmacy business. (XC, ¶ 16.)

IV.    CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the demurrer is OVERRULED.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 31st day of October 2024

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.