Carp Property LLC vs Claudia Ramos et al

Case Number

23CV03969

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 10/23/2023 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Demurrer

Tentative Ruling

Carp Property LLC vs. Claudia Ramos, et al. 

Case No. 23CV03969

           

Hearing Date: October 23, 2023                                                         

MATTERS:             Demurrer To Complaint

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Carp Property LLC: John J. Thyne III, Thyne Taylor Fox Howard LLP

For Defendants Claudia Ramos, Martha Leyva, and Rocio Ramos: Self Represented

TENTATIVE RULING:

The demurrer of defendants to plaintiff’s complaint is overruled. Defendants’ time to file their answer to plaintiff’s complaint shall be extended until five days after service upon defendants of written notice of entry of the Court’s order overruling the demurrer, exclusive of any extended time periods provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1013.

Background:

This is an unlawful detainer action filed on September 12, 2023, by plaintiff Carp Property LLC, against defendants Claudia Ramos, Sergio Ramos, Martha Leyva, and Rocio Ramos (collectively, defendants). The complaint alleges that plaintiff is the owner of premises located at 4647 Carpinteria Avenue, # 3, located in the city limits of Carpinteria, California (the premises). (Complaint, ¶¶ 3.a, 3.b, 4.) On February 1, 2019, defendants agreed to rent the premises pursuant to a written agreement (the lease). (Id. at ¶¶ 6.a(1), 6.b(1), 6.e & Exh. 1.) Defendants agreed to pay monthly rent of $3,000 payable on the first of each month. (Id. at ¶¶ 6.a(2) & (3).) The tenancy is subject to Civil Code section 1946.2 (the Tenant Protection Act of 2019). (Id. at ¶¶ 7.b.)

On August 8, 2023, plaintiff served defendants with a 3-day notice to perform covenants or quit (the 3-day notice) by personally handing a copy to defendants. (Complaint, ¶¶ 9.a(5) & (6); 9.e, 10.a(1), 10.b & Exhs. 2, 3.) The 3-day notice includes an election of forfeiture. (Id. at ¶ 9.d.) The period stated in the 3-day notice expired at the end of the day on August 11, 2023, and defendants failed to comply with its requirements by that date. (Id. at ¶ 9.b(1) & (2).)

Defendants have filed a demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that defendants have cured the breach of the lease. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer.

Analysis:

On demurrer, the court determines only whether the complaint “alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory.” (T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (2017) 4 Cal.5th 145, 162; accord, Mathews v. Becerra (2019) 8 Cal.5th 756, 768.) “ ‘The rules by which the sufficiency of a complaint is tested against a general demurrer are well settled. We not only treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but also ‘give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.’ ” (Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364, 370, internal quotation marks and citations omitted.) If the complaint states a cause of action, it is good against a demurrer. (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38.)

Actions for unlawful detainer are authorized and governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1161 et seq., The statutory scheme is “intended and designed to provide an expeditious remedy for the recovery of possession of real property.” (Larson v. City and County of San Francisco (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1297.) Due to the summary nature of an unlawful detainer proceeding, strict compliance with the statutory requirements is a prerequisite to a landlord’s recovery of possession. (Dr. Leevil, LLC v. Westlake Health Care Center (2018) 6 Cal.5th 474, 480.)

Defendants assert that the 3-day notice demands that they cease operation of a commercial venture. (Complaint, Exh. 2.) Because they have ceased operation of a commercial venture, defendants argue, they have cured the breach of the lease. For this reason, defendants contend, plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for unlawful detainer. Defendants further contend that because no further notice to quit was provided to them by plaintiff, the complaint is fatally defective.

In support of its opposition to the demurrer, plaintiff asserts facts regarding the purported operation of a daycare center and the creation of unsafe traffic conditions by defendants. The Court disregards these matters which are not disclosed or alleged on the face of the complaint. (See Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881 [error for court to consider matters asserted in memorandum supporting demurrer not disclosed by the complaint].)

“A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not the evidence or the facts alleged. Thus, a demurrer will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face.” (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.) As further discussed above, the complaint effectively alleges that defendants did not cure the breach stated in the 3-day notice. There are no facts asserted on the face of the complaint that contradict these allegations. In addition, on demurrer, the Court accepts the truth of plaintiff’s allegations and does not consider whether or not plaintiff can prove the allegations. (Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.)

The truth of the allegation that defendants failed to cure any breach of the lease alleged in the complaint or failed to cure the conditions or breaches alleged in the 3-day notice is a factual matter that the Court may not properly determine on demurrer. Moreover, defendants present no reasoned legal or factual argument to demonstrate that plaintiff was required to re-serve the 3-day notice. The factual matters asserted by defendants may be resolved at trial or through other appropriate means. For these reasons, the Court will overrule defendants’ demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint.