Case Number: VC064090    Hearing Date: July 10, 2014    Dept: SEC

ADDICKS v. ASTRO CUSTOM INJECTION MOLDING, INC.
CASE NO.: VC064090
HEARING: 07/10/14

#12
TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant ASTRO CUSTOM INJECTION MOLDING, INC.’s demurrer is
OVERRULED. C.C.P. § 430.10(b), (c).

Defendant has 5 days to serve and file a responsive pleading.

As a preliminary matter, in opposition to the demurrer, plaintiff submitted evidence that defendant ASTRO CUSTOM is a suspended corporation. If that is the case, it is not entitled to appear before this Court. Bourhis v. Lord (2014) 56 Cal.4th 320. Counsel for defendant is instructed to confer with his client to ensure that he is properly appearing in relation to the subject motion, as well as any other hearings or appearances scheduled in either of the pending cases.

On June 19, 2014, plaintiff LYLE ADDICKS filed an unlawful detainer complaint against defendant. As alleged, Addicks is the trustee of the Addicks Family Trust, which owns the commercial real property at issue. Comp., ¶¶2, 4. Plaintiff brought this action “individually and as trustee.” Comp., ¶¶1, 2.

Defendant Astro asserts several reasons for its demurrer. First, it argues that there is a misjoinder of parties because plaintiff Lyle Addicks signed the lease as an individual and not as trustee. As noted above, plaintiff Addicks brought the action in his capacity as an individual and the landlord as listed on the lease agreement. Comp., ¶1, Exh. 1. The demurrer is overruled on that ground.

Defendant argues that allegations in what appears to be a prior unlawful detainer action brought by plaintiff (VC063439) were factually inaccurate. Defendant did not submit the prior pleading or articulate the legal relevance of the prior action to the propriety of the subject complaint.

Defendant also argues that the factual allegations contradict the terms of the lease. Where there are such inconsistencies, the lease takes precedence. Dodd v. Citizens Bank (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1624. Here, defendant does not identify any inconsistency between the allegations and the exhibit. It argues that the rent has been paid in full. That is an issue which will be adjudicated at trial. Whether plaintiff can prove his complaint is not a determination to be made at the pleading stage.

Defendant also references the case it filed against plaintiff wherein it seeks damages for breach of contract, fraud, etc. Addicks filed a cross-complaint in that action (case number VC063511). While the two actions have been deemed related, they have not been consolidated (and there is no motion pending before the Court to consolidate the actions). Plaintiff here is not precluded from bringing his unlawful detainer action to attempt to retain possession of the leased premises. Possession is relief distinct from that sought in the related case. Defendant’s demurrer based on the other action pending is overruled.