Tentative Ruling

Judge Donna Geck
Department 4 SB-Anacapa
1100 Anacapa Street P.O. Box 21107 Santa Barbara, CA 93121-1107

CIVIL LAW & MOTION
Kristine A Torgeson vs Glenn Corning et al
Case No: 19CV05364
Hearing Date: Fri Nov 08, 2019 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Demurrer

TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer to plaintiff’s unlawful detainer complaint is overruled. Defendant shall file and serve his answer to the complaint on or before November 13, 2019.

BACKGROUND:

This is an unlawful detainer action involving a commercial lease. On January 11, 2019, plaintiff Kristine A. Torgeson dba Torgeson Properties and defendant Glenn Corning entered into a written lease and addendum to lease for commercial premises located at 427 State Street, Santa Barbara, California 93101. Because defendant was starting a new business, the lease payments for the first six months were at a reduced rate. Once the initial six-month trial period had elapsed, and if defendant elected to continue his tenancy, the monthly rent was increased to $6,000.00 per month, starting August 2019. Defendant continued his tenancy at the premises following the initial six-month trial period, but ceased paying rent. On October 1, 2019, defendant was served with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit. Defendant failed to comply with the requirements of the notice and there is currently due and owing to plaintiff the sum of $6,000.00, plus damages and attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff filed her complaint for unlawful detainer on October 7, 2019. Defendant was personally served with the complaint on October 8, 2019 and on October 15, 2019, he filed and served his demurrer. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer.

ANALYSIS:

The grounds for demurrer are set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 430.10, which provides, in relevant part:

“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 of the following grounds:

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

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

A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the complaint or from matters outside the complaint that are judicially noticeable. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Donabedian v. Mercury Insurance Company (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994. In reviewing the sufficiency of a cause of action against a demurrer, the court assumes the truth of all facts properly pleaded. Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 553, 558. The court also assumes the truth of all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the properly pleaded facts. Reynolds v. Bement (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1075, 1083.

Defendant initially demurs to the complaint on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The demurrer will be overruled. “Subject matter jurisdiction” refers to the court’s power to hear and resolve a particular dispute or cause of action. Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Company, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1029. The California Constitution confers broad subject matter jurisdiction on the superior court to hear all cases in law and equity. Cal. Const., art. VI, §10.) This includes actions for the recovery of possession of real property. Ibid. An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding, the primary purpose of which is to obtain possession of real property. Union Oil Company v. Chandler (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 716, 721. Here, plaintiff seeks possession of the leased premises through an action in unlawful detainer and therefore the action was properly brought in the superior court.

Defendant next demurs to the complaint on the ground that plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer. The demurrer will again be overruled. Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161, subdivision 2, a tenant of real property is guilty of unlawful detainer when:

“[H]e or she continues in possession, in person or by subtenant, without the permission of his or her landlord, or the successor in estate of his or her landlord, if applicable, after default in the payment of rent, pursuant to the lease or agreement under which the property is held, and three days’ notice, in writing, requiring its payment, stating the amount which is due, the name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent shall be made, and if the payment may be made personally, the usual days and hours that person will be available to receive payment . . . .”

In her complaint, plaintiff has alleged the ultimate facts for an unlawful detainer cause of action. Specifically, plaintiff has alleged:

● Defendant is in possession of premises located at 427 State Street, Santa Barbara, California 93101 (Comp., ¶3);

● Plaintiff’s interest in the premises is as agent for the owner and is entitled to possession (Comp., ¶4);

● On January 11, 2019, defendant agreed to lease the premises for a fixed term pursuant to a written lease agreement with plaintiff (Comp., ¶6b, Ex. 1);

● Pursuant to the written lease and addendum to lease, the monthly rent for August 2019 and each month thereafter is $6,000.00 per month (Comp., ¶6d, Ex. 1);

● Defendant has continued in possession of the premises after August 2019 without paying rent (Comp., ¶6d);

● On October 1, 2019, defendant was served with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit that specified where and to whom the lease payment was to be made (Comp., ¶7a(1), Ex. 2);

● Defendant has failed to comply with the requirements of the notice (Comp., ¶7b(2)); and

● At the time the three-day notice to pay rent or quit was served, the amount of rent due was $6,000.00 (Comp., ¶10).

These are sufficient allegations to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer and defendant’s demurrer to the complaint will be overruled. Defendant shall file and serve his answer to the complaint on or before November 13, 2019.