Tentative Ruling: Klara Dykastova vs 156 Olive Partners LP et al

Case Number

25CV07918

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 10/28/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Demurrer of Defendants 156 Olive Partners LP, Santa Barbara Property Management, and Vanessa Olmos to Complaint

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Klara Dykastova: John C. Carpenter, Carlos A. Hernandez, Gabriel Minsal, Kayleigh L. Hennerty, Carpenter & Zuckerman

                                   

For Defendants 156 Olive Partners LP, Santa Barbara Property Management, and Vanessa Olmos: Thomas S. Gelini, Mark P. Edson, Bennett, Gelini & Gelini; William S. Brunsten

               

RULING

For the reasons set forth herein, the court, on its own motion, strikes the demurrer of defendants 156 Olive Partners LP, Santa Barbara Property Management, and Vanessa Olmos as not filed in conformity with the laws of this state, namely, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a)(3). These defendants shall file and serve their responsive pleading on or before November 18, 2026.

Background

As alleged in plaintiff’s complaint:

Plaintiff Klara Dykastova was a resident and tenant at a residential unit located at 156 Olive Street, Apt. 7, Summerland, California (the Property). (Complaint, ¶ 1.) Dykastova began leasing the Property in October 2020. (Complaint, ¶ 9.)

Defendant 156 Olive Partners LP (156 Olive) owns, manages, or controls the Property. (Complaint, ¶ 2.)

Defendant Santa Barbara Property Management (SBPM) operates, manages, or controls the Property. (Complaint, ¶ 3.)

Defendant Vanessa Olmos is the agent, employee, and manager of 156 Olive or SBPM. (Complaint, ¶ 4.)

In 2023, Dykastova’s health sharply declined. (Complaint, ¶ 10.) In summer 2023, Dykastova experienced significant cognitive changes and memory loss. (Ibid.) From November 2023, Dykastova began suffering terrible headaches and other symptoms. (Complaint, ¶ 11.) Dykastova sought treatment from her primary care physician repeatedly, seeing him multiple times a week. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) Despite treatment, Dykastova’s symptoms worsened. (Ibid.)

In January 2024, Dykastova began experiencing severe gastrointestinal issues. (Complaint, ¶ 13.) On January 13, 2024, Dykastova’s neighbor, Victoria Jung, and her husband Pergrin Jung, discovered mold in the unit adjacent to the Property, including mold adjacent to the wall shared with Dykastova. (Complaint, ¶ 14.) The mold was caused by a water leak which soaked the underfloor and was covered with mold. (Complaint, ¶ 15.) The mold included chaetomium, stachybotris, and aspergillus. (Ibid.)

On January 13, 2024, Pergrin Jung sent an email to the landlord notifying them of the water leak and presence of mold. (Complaint, ¶ 16.) Despite this notice, the landlord refused to evacuate Dykastova and attempted to hide evidence of the mold. (Complaint, ¶ 17.) Dykastova evacuated the Property on her own in January 2024, and her symptoms began to slowly improve. (Complaint, ¶ 18.)

On December 18, 2025, Dykastova filed her complaint in this action asserting 11 causes of action: (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (2) breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) constructive eviction; (4) nuisance; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (6) premises liability; (7) general negligence; (8) negligent maintenance of the premises in violation of Civil Code section 1714(A); (9) negligent hiring and supervision in violation of Civil Code section 1714(A); (10) violations of Health and Safety Code section 17920.3; and (11) violation of unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200).

On April 22, 2026, the court set a trial date of April 21, 2027.

On June 4, 2026, Dykastova filed two amendments to the complaint identifying defendant “Doe 1” as Mohammad Mahboob and defendant “Doe 2” as Gity Mahboob.

On September 9, 2026, Dykastova requested, and the court entered, default as to defendant Gity Mahboob.

On September 15, 2026, defendants 156 Olive, SBPM, and Olmos (the demurring parties) filed their demurrer to causes of action of the complaint. Also on September 15, Dykastova requested, and the court entered, dismissal without prejudice as to defendant Mohammad Mahboob.

The demurrer is opposed by Dykastova.

Analysis

There are procedural issues which preclude the court from considering the demurrer as now presented.

“Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. If an amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer is filed, the responding party shall meet and confer again with the party who filed the amended pleading before filing a demurrer to the amended pleading. [¶] … [¶] (3) The demurring party shall file and serve with the demurrer a declaration stating either of the following:

“(A)     The means by which the demurring party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer.

“(B)     That the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the demurring party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)

Both the notice of demurrer (filed Sept. 15, 2026) and the amended notice of demurrer (filed Sept. 28, 2026) state that the demurrer is based upon the notice, memorandum in support, request for judicial notice, and the declaration of Mark P. Edson. The only declaration filed with the demurrer is the declaration of attorney Edson; no other declarations are attached to or filed with the demurrer.

The declaration of Edson consists of four paragraphs. In paragraph 1, Edson states he has personal knowledge to make the declaration. In paragraph 2, Edson states that he is an attorney representing the demurring parties. In paragraph 3, Edson states that exhibit A to his declaration is a copy of plaintiff’s complaint. (Note: It is not necessary to include a copy of the complaint in connection with a party’s responsive pleading, here, a demurrer, where the pleading addresses the complaint.) In paragraph 4, Edson states that exhibit B to his declaration is a copy of a grant deed (for which judicial notice is requested in another document).

The declaration does not state the matters required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a)(3). The court therefore will strike the demurrer, without prejudice, as not filed in conformity with the laws of this state. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436, subd. (b).)