Tom Ziaee vs Lawrence Jacobsen

Case Number

24CV02627

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 06/17/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Demurrer

Tentative Ruling

Tom Ziaee v. Lawrence Jacobsen                            

Case No. 24CV02627          

Hearing Date: June 17, 2024                                                  

HEARING:              Demurrer of Defendant Lawrence Jacobson to Plaintiff Tom Ziaee’s Unlawful Detainer Complaint

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Tom Ziaee: Self-Represented

                                    For Defendant Lawrence Jacobsen: Karen K. Peabody

                                                           

TENTATIVE RULING:

The demurrer of defendant Lawrence Jacobsen to plaintiff’s complaint is overruled. Defendant shall file and serve his answer to the complaint no later than June 25, 2024.

Background:

This action was commenced on May 14, 2024, by the filing of plaintiff Tom Ziaee’s complaint against defendant Lawrence Jacobsen.

As alleged in the complaint:

This action pertains to property located at 209 West Cota Street, Apt. 3, Santa Barbara, within the city limits of Santa Barbara. (Complaint, ¶ 3.)

On February 24, 2022, plaintiff and defendant entered into a 1-year written lease which later converted to a month-to-month tenancy following the expiration of the lease. (Complaint, ¶ 6 & Exh. 1.) Plaintiff offered a one-year lease to defendant on March 1, 2024, and on May 6, 2024, but defendant did not reply to the offer. (Ibid.) The tenancy is subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. (Complaint, ¶ 7.)

The tenancy was terminated for at-fault just cause pursuant to Civil Code section 1946.2, subdivision (b)(1). (Complaint, ¶ 8.)

Defendant was personally served with 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit on May 8, 2024. (Complaint, ¶¶ 9, 10 & Exh. 2.)

Defendant demurs to the FAC arguing: (1) The FAC does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible because the amount of the monthly rent due is inaccurately stated in the attached 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit; and (2) The FAC does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because the FAC fails to allege compliance with Santa Barbara Municipal Code section 26.40.010.

Plaintiff opposes the demurrer.

Analysis:

“The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:

“(a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading.

“(b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue.

“(c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.

“(d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties.

“(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

“(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible.

“(g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.

“(h) No certificate was filed as required by Section 411.35.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.)

“[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.)

Defendant’s first ground for demurrer, that the 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible, is without merit. Defendant argues that the amount due pursuant to the 3-Day Notice is contradicted by the terms of the February 24, 2022, lease. In opposition, plaintiff explains his position and argues that the amounts are correct. Essentially, defendant is requesting that the court improperly weigh evidence at the demurrer stage. At most, defendant’s position would go to the amount of potential damages to be recovered, and is not a proper grounds for demurrer.

Defendant’s second ground for demurrer is that plaintiff failed to plead compliance with Santa Barbara Municipal Code section 26.40.010, in that he did not offer a one-time conciliation meeting to plaintiff.

“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.)

Allegations, on the face of the complaint, adequately show that the subject property is located in the city of Santa Barbara and is subject to the Municipal Code.

When not in conflict with state law, local legislative bodies may pass ordinances that give rise to “a substantive ground of defense in unlawful detainer proceedings.” (Birkenfeld v. City of Berkely (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, 148-149.)

“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.)

The Santa Barbara Municipal Code is controlling, and plaintiff is required to plead compliance with the applicable code sections.

Santa Barbara Municipal Code section 26.40.010, subdivision (A), requires: “If a tenant or prospective tenant wishes to rent a rental unit from a landlord and if the landlord wishes to rent the rental unit to the tenant or prospective tenant, the landlord must offer to the tenant or prospective tenant a written lease which has a minimum term of one year. The offer must be made in writing. The landlord’s signing of a lease which has a minimum term of one year shall be considered an offer in writing.” “The landlord shall have the burden of proving that the lease offer was made to the tenant.” (Id., at subd. (C).)

“If both the landlord and the tenant wish to continue the rental relationship, upon the expiration of the initial written lease which has a minimum term of one year, a lease shall be offered again in accordance with the procedures of this section:

“1.     Leases with a term of one year shall be offered annually.

“2.     Leases with a term longer than one year shall be renewable at the expiration of each lease period for a minimum term of one year.

“3.     A landlord shall offer annually a written lease with a minimum term of one year to a tenant who rejected an initial offer of a written lease with a minimum term of one year but who has rented a unit from the landlord for a period of at least twelve months.” (Santa Barbara Mun. Code, § 26.40.010, subd. (E).)

“Non-renewal of leases. If the landlord does not wish to continue the rental relationship, then at the time the landlord delivers notice of such termination, the tenant shall be offered a one-session conciliation meeting with the landlord using the Santa Barbara Rental Housing Mediation Board, if available, or a qualified mediator of mutual choice and provided at mutual expense. The results of any conciliation meeting shall not be binding unless agreed to by the landlord and tenant. A tenant need not participate in a conciliation meeting. The remedies available under this chapter shall not be affected by a tenant's inability or refusal to participate in conciliation.” (Id., at subd. (F).)

Failure of the landlord to comply with the requirement of offering the tenant a lease with a one-year minimum term, provides the tenant with a “defense in any legal action brought by the landlord to recover possession of the rental unit” for a period of one-year from the date of the failure of the landlord to offer the one-year minimum term lease. (Santa Barbara Mun. Code, § 26.40.020, subd. (A).)

“To establish that a cause of action has been adequately pled, a plaintiff must demonstrate he or she has alleged ‘facts sufficient to establish every element of that cause of action.’ [Citation.]” (Williams v. Sacramento River Cats Baseball Club, LLC (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 280, 286.)

           

As set forth above, plaintiff alleges that he offered defendant a one-year lease on two occasions. Defendant ignored the offers and cannot claim that it was ineffective to constitute compliance with the Municipal Code. Likewise, defendant’s argument that plaintiff was required to offer him a conciliation meeting is without merit. That section only applies if the landlord does not wish to continue the rental relationship. Here, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true, which the court must do in ruling on a demurrer, offering the one-year lease can only imply that plaintiff wished to continue the rental relationship.

The demurrer will be overruled.