Case Number: 18VEUD00637 Hearing Date: May 29, 2018 Dept: NWB

18VEUD00637 ERINA KWON, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE KWON FAMILY TRUST VS SERIAN RABADI, ET AL

Date of Hearing: 5/29/2018

Department: B

Case No: 18VEUD00637

TENTATIVE RULING

DEFENDANT SERIAN RABADI’S DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER

filed on April 20, 2018

Plaintiff Kwon filed an unlawful detainer action against the Rabadi defendants. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges that Serian Rabadi was hired by plaintiff to act as a resident on-site manager in April 2013. The parties signed an employment agreement, whereby either party could terminate the agreement on two weeks’ written notice (Exh. A to FAC). Plaintiff alleges that on November 3, 2017, plaintiff gave defendant Serian Rabadi notice of termination of employment, effective November 17, 2017 (Exh. B to FAC). Plaintiff further alleges that defendants claim to have entered into a lease agreement with plaintiff (Exh. C to FAC). Plaintiff denies that it entered into such lease. The FAC also alleges defendants have failed to vacate the manager’s apartment unit, despite the termination of the employment agreement, nor have defendants paid rent. Plaintiff seeks possession of the unit and detention damages.

Defendants Rabadi demurred to the original complaint, which was sustained with leave to amend to amend on March 28, 2018 by Judge Virginia Keeney. The demurrer was sustained only with respect to plaintiff’s failure to attach a copy of the lease (which plaintiff contends is a forgery). This defect has been cured by way of the FAC (See, Exh. C).

Defendants now demur to the FAC, alleging that the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) applies, and plaintiff has failed to comply with the RSO.

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc., sec. 589; Schmidt v. Foundation Health, 35 Cal. App. 4th 1702, 1706 (1995). In testing the sufficiency of the complaint, the court must assume the truth of: (1) the properly pleaded factual allegations of the complaint; (2) facts that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded; and (3) judicially noticed matters. See Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal. 3d 311, 318 (1985). Accordingly, “[w]hether the plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant to ruling upon the demurrer.” Stevens v. Superior Court, 180 Cal. App. 3d 605, 609-610 (1986). The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.

Whether defendants can establish a tenancy apart from the employment agreement and whether the RSO applies to defendants are both issues of fact, not ones of law that might be appropriate for determination at the demurrer stage. The court must assume the truth of the factual allegations of the FAC. Thus, the court finds the FAC alleges sufficient facts to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer.

Plaintiff requests that the court take judicial notice of the minute order of Judge Debre Weintraub, dated April 26, 2018 in Rabadi v. Kwon, LASC No. PC058161, denying plaintiff Rabadi’s motion to have that matter related to the instant unlawful detainer case. The court grants notice of this minute order as a record of the court. Evid. Code, sec. 452(d) and 453.

Defendants request that the court take judicial notice of the minute order of Judge Stephen Pfahler, dated March 21, 2018 in Kwon v Rabadi, 18VEUD00637, denying the motion to relate the two cases. The court grants notice of this minute order as a record of the court. Evid. Code, sec. 452(d) and 453.

Defendants also request that the court take judicial notice of the fact that plaintiff is a licensed attorney. The court will take such notice, but it is irrelevant to the issues this court must determine herein.

Finally, in support of the reply, defendants request that the court take judicial notice of San Francisco’s Residential Rent Stabilization Ordinance. The court will take notice of the ordinance, but such is not binding in any way on this court nor relevant to the issues raised herein.

The court overrules defendants’ demurrer and Defendant is to answer only within 5 days. On its face, the FAC states a cause of action. Any issues of fact raised by defendants, including the applicability of LARSO, might be properly addressed via other vehicles, but are not appropriate for resolution via demurrer.