City of Santa Barbara vs Santa Barbara Harbor Restaurant Inc

Case Number

26CV00694

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 03/13/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Demurrer

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set forth herein, the demurrer is overruled. Defendant Santa Barbara Harbor Restaurant, Inc. shall file and serve an answer to the complaint no later than March 20, 2026, by 5:00 p.m.

Background: 

This action commenced on January 30, 2026, by the filing of the unlawful detainer complaint by plaintiff City of Santa Barbara (the City) against defendant Santa Barbara Harbor Restaurant, Inc. (Harbor Restaurant) for unlawful detainer.

As alleged in the complaint:

Harbor Restaurant is in possession of premises located at 210 Stearns Wharf (the Premises), which is owned by, and located within the limits of, the City. (Compl., ¶¶ 1, 3(a), 3(b)(1) & 4.) On February 7, 2002, the City entered into a written lease agreement (the Lease) with Harbor Restaurant’s predecessor in interest, that was assigned to Harbor Restaurant on October 13, 2021. (Compl., ¶¶ 6(a), 6(b)(1), 6(c)(3), 6(e) & Exh. 1 [Lease].) Pursuant to the Lease, Harbor Restaurant’s predecessor agreed to rent the Premises as a commercial tenancy of approximately 27 years, and to pay rent of $36,000 payable monthly on the first of each month. (Compl., ¶¶ 6(a)(1)-(3) & 7(a).) The Lease was later changed by rent increases to the current base rent of $61,403.70, plus percentage rents. (Compl., ¶ 6(d).)

On January 13, 2026, the City served Harbor Restaurant with a ten-day notice to pay or quit (the Notice To Quit), by leaving a copy of the Notice to Quit with an employee at the Harbor Restaurant’s business, and by mailing a copy to Harbor Restaurant. (Compl., ¶¶ 9(a)(8), 9(e), 10(a)(2), 10(d) & Exhs. 2-3 [Notice to Quit & proof of service].) At the time of service of the Notice to Quit, the amount of rent due from Harbor Restaurant was $307,018.50. (Comp., ¶ 13.) The Notice to Quit includes an election of forfeiture. (Compl., ¶ 9(d).)

On January 28, 2026, the period stated in the Notice to Quit expired at the end of the day, and Harbor Restaurant failed to comply with its requirements by that date. (Compl., ¶ 9(b)(1)-(2).) The City seeks, among other things, possession of the Premises, past-due rent, and forfeiture of the Lease. (Compl., ¶ 20(a)-(i).)

Harbor Restaurant now demurs to the complaint “on the grounds that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Defendants because the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit is defective inasmuch as it does not state the correct amount of rent allegedly due and it does not state pursuant to California Civil Code §1161.1 that it is a reasonable estimate of rent due, but rather it improperly states that rent is due for a period during which rent is not due; Plaintiffs are currently defendants in a pending civil action alleging that the Lease of the Real Property that is the subject of this unlawful detainer action presents a commercial impracticability/impossibility, the purpose of the Lease has been frustrated, the Lease is unconscionable, and Plaintiff has breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing under the Lease, none of which is amenable to summary adjudication and all of which, if proved, establishes that the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit upon which jurisdiction in this case is based, is defective.” Harbor Restaurant also demurs on grounds that it would be “manifestly unjust to evict Defendant in light of Defendant’s contribution of $1,700,000 to the Premises . . ..”

The City opposes the demurrer on the grounds that Harbor Restaurant’s demurrer raises factual disputes that are not proper subjects of a demurrer for failure to state a cause of action.

Analysis:

“[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.)

“To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.)

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.)

Harbor Restaurant’s first argument is that the notice to pay rent or quit is defective because it states the incorrect amount of rent due, that the notice does not clearly identify the amount due as an estimate, and that if a jury finds in Harbor Restaurant’s favor there will be no rent due for February 2025 through June 2025. These arguments are not a proper basis for demurrer. Rather, they are issues for determination by a trier of fact.

The complaint alleges, at paragraph 13, that at the time the 10-day notice to pay rent or quit was served, the amount of rent due was $307,018.50. The 10-day notice to pay rent or quit, attached to the complaint as Exhibit 2, also lists $307,018.50 as the amount of rent due at that time. Again, the court must treat the allegations of the complaint as true and must not rely on extrinsic evidence. Whether or not this is an accurate statement of rent due is a factual issue that cannot be decided by way of demurrer. Whether a notice to pay rent or quit states precisely the rent due is a “question of fact which must be put to trial.” (Ernst Enterprises, Inc. v. Sun Valley Gasoline, Inc. (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 355, 359.)

Harbor Restaurant’s second argument fairs no better. Harbor Restaurant’s argument is, essentially, that the law abhors a forfeiture, and that Harbor Restaurant is entitled to an equitable offset. Whether or not Harbor Restaurant is entitled to an equitable offset is not something that can be decided by way of demurrer. Again, this is an issue for determination by a trier of fact.

The demurrer will be overruled. Harbor Restaurant will be ordered to file an answer to the complaint.