Jaime Cazares, Jr vs Elisa Cabrera

Case Number

24CV02546

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 06/17/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Demurrer

Tentative Ruling

Jaime Cazares Jr. v. Elisa Cabrera                                   

Case No. 24CV02546        

Hearing Date: June 17, 2024                                                  

HEARING:              Demurrer of Defendant Elisa Cabrera to Plaintiff Jaime Cazares, Jr.’s Complaint

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Jaime Cazares, Jr.: Gregory J. Ramirez

                                    For Defendant Elisa Cabrera: Self Represented

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

The demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint is sustained without leave to amend.

Background:

This action was commenced on May 7, 2024, by the filing of the complaint for unlawful detainer by Jaime Cazares, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) against Elisa Cabrera (“Defendant”). The complaint alleges that defendant has been renting premises located at 92 Nectarine Ave., Unit B, Goleta, within the city limits of Goleta, since August 1, 2020, pursuant to a written month-to-month lease, with monthly rent starting out at $2,000.00. (Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 6.) The lease was amended effective September 2022, increasing rent by 10 percent each year. (Id. at ¶ 6, subd. (d).) The tenancy is subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Defendant was served with a 60-day notice to terminate tenancy, on February 7, 2024, because “the property needs severe under flooring plumbing repairs that require the house to be unoccupied. (Id. at ¶ 9 & Exh. 2.)

On May 15, 2024, defendant filed the present general demurrer to the complaint on the grounds that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e). The demurrer was served on May 15, 2024, by mail.

Plaintiff has not filed opposition or any other response to the demurrer.

Analysis:

            Standard on Demurrer

“[A] court must treat a demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, it does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” (Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 341, 358, citing Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

A demurrer searches for defects in the allegations of the pleading. “A demurrer is simply not the appropriate procedure for determining the truth of disputed facts.” (Ramsden v. Western Union (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 873, 879.)

“It has long been recognized that the unlawful detainer statutes are to be strictly construed and that relief not statutorily authorized may not be given due to the summary nature of the proceedings. The statutory requirements in such proceedings must be followed strictly, otherwise a landlord’s remedy is an ordinary suit for breach of contract with all the delays that remedy normally involves and without restitution of the demised property.” (WDT-Winchester v. Nilsson (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 516, 526.)

Even though plaintiff failed to check any of the boxes in the complaint indicating whether the eviction is an at-fault eviction or a no-fault eviction, the notice clearly indicates that the purpose of the eviction is no-fault for the purposes of renovations.

“If an owner issues a notice to terminate a tenancy for no-fault just cause, the owner shall notify the tenant of the tenant’s right to relocation assistance or rent waiver pursuant to this section. If the owner elects to waive the rent for the final month of the tenancy as provided in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), the notice shall state the amount of rent waived and that no rent is due for the final month of the tenancy.” (Civ. Code, § 1946.2, subd. (d)(2).)

“The amount of relocation assistance or rent waiver shall be equal to one month of the tenant's rent that was in effect when the owner issued the notice to terminate the tenancy. Any relocation assistance shall be provided within 15 calendar days of service of the notice.” (Id., at subd. (d)(3)(A).) “An owner’s failure to strictly comply with this subdivision shall render the notice of termination void.” (Id., at subd. (d)(4).)

Pursuant to the Goleta Municipal Code, no-fault just cause includes:

“4.     The owner seeks in good faith to recover possession to totally demolish or to substantially remodel the rental unit, provided the owner has done all of the following:

       “a.     Obtained all permits necessary to carry out the demolition or substantial remodel from applicable governmental agencies.

        “b.     Given the tenants an appropriate notice of termination of residential tenancy as required by subsection E of this section, advising the tenants of the owner’s intent to terminate the tenancy in reliance on this subsection, which must include all of the following information:

                       “i.      A statement informing the tenant of the owner’s intent to demolish the rental unit or substantially remodel the rental unit and providing the reason why the work cannot be reasonably accomplished in a safe manner with the tenant in place and why the work requires the tenant to vacate the rental unit for at least 30 days.

                       “ii.     The following statement:

        “ ‘If the substantial remodel of your unit or demolition of the property as described in this notice of termination is not commenced or completed, the landlord must offer you the opportunity to re-rent your unit with a rental agreement containing the same terms as your most recent rental agreement with the owner at the rental rate that was in effect at the time you vacated. You must notify the landlord within 30 days of receipt of the offer to re-rent of your acceptance or rejection of the offer, and, if accepted, you must reoccupy the unit within 30 days of notifying the owner of your acceptance of the offer.’ ”

                       “iii.    A description of the substantial remodel to be completed, the approximate expected duration of the substantial remodel, or if the property is to be demolished, the expected date by which the property will be demolished, together with one of the following:

                                   “(A)   A copy of the permit or permits required to undertake the substantial remodel or demolition.

                                   “(B)   Only if a notice is issued for the abatement of hazardous materials, including lead-based paint, mold, or asbestos, in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, and if the remodel does not require any permit, a copy of the signed contract with the contractor hired by the owner to complete the substantial remodel, which reasonably details the work that will be undertaken to abate the hazardous materials.

                       “iv.    A notification that, in accordance with Section 8.19.060, if the tenant is interested in reoccupying the rental unit following the substantial remodel, the tenant shall inform the landlord of the tenant’s interest in reoccupying the rental unit following the substantial remodel and provide to the landlord the tenant’s address, telephone number, and email address.

        “c.     Filed with the Planning and Environmental Review Department, within five calendar days after service of the notice of termination of residential tenancy, a copy of the documents served on the tenant and proof of such service, signed by the owner under penalty of perjury, on the tenant. The owner shall maintain proof of service to the City as evidence that the owner has complied with this section. The owner’s failure to provide proof of service shall create a rebuttable presumption that the owner did not comply with this section.” (Goleta Mun. Code, § 8.19.040, subd. (C)(4).)

“The landlord of a rental unit who issues a notice of termination of residential tenancy based upon no-fault just cause shall, within 15 calendar days after service of the notice, make a relocation assistance payment to each qualified tenant in an amount established by resolution of the City Council or two months’ rent that was in effect when the landlord issued the notice of termination of residential tenancy, whichever is greater.” (Id., at subd. (D)(1).)

“The written notice to terminate tenancy shall state in full the facts and circumstances constituting the at-fault just cause or no-fault just cause for termination of residential tenancy.” (Id., at subd. (E)(1).)

“In pleading a private statute, or an ordinance of a county or municipal corporation, or a right derived therefrom, it is sufficient to refer to such statute or ordinance by its title and the day of its passage. In pleading the performance of conditions precedent under a statute or an ordinance of a county or municipal corporation, or of a right derived therefrom, it is not necessary to state the facts showing such performance, but it may be stated generally that the party duly performed all the conditions on his part required thereby; if such allegations be controverted the party pleading must establish on the trial the facts showing such performance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 459.) As such, plaintiff was required to at least plead compliance with, or exemption from.

The notice and complaint are both defective and essentially fail to comply with any of the requirements set forth above.

Because the notice itself is defective, there is no reasonable probability that the complaint is capable of amendment to correct the deficiencies. Should plaintiff wish to move forward with the unlawful detainer, he must begin again by strictly complying with eviction requirements, including the Municipal Code, with legally sufficient notice.