Tentative Ruling

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

CIVIL LAW & MOTION
Tiffany Rochel vs Sharon Rahimi et al
Case No: 19CV05858
Hearing Date: Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Demurrer

Tentative Ruling: The court overrules defendant Sharon Rahimi’s demurrer to plaintiff Tiffany Rochel’s complaint. Defendant Sharon Rahimi shall file an answer to the complaint on or before December 23, 2019.

Background: This is an unlawful detainer action that plaintiff Tiffany Rochel commenced on November 1, 2019, against defendants Sharon Rahimi, Lily Rahimi Rochel, and Monir Rochel. Plaintiff alleges:

On August 1, 2019, Michel Rochel and defendants orally agreed to rent premises at 780 Ladera Lane in Santa Barbara. The tenancy was at-will. Michel Rochel died on August 17, 2019. On October 1, 2019, plaintiff served a 30-day notice to quit by personally handing a copy to defendants. Defendants remain on the premises.

Defendants Lilly Rahimi Rochel and Monir Rochel filed an answer to the complaint on November 8. The court vacated that answer on December 6 after their applications for fee waivers were denied and the court entered their defaults.

Demurrer: Defendant Sharon Rahimi demurs to the complaint on the ground that plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to constitute the cause of action. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer.

In the demurrer, Rahimi states: “Defendant leases a residential property through (sic). A written lease agreement was signed. The defendant has a current valid lease and Plaintiff is seeking to overlook the valid lease which the defendant has in its possession.” Rahimi also states: “the three-day notice served on Defendant is defective as it does not contain the information required by Code of Civil Procedure §1161(2), and further that the three-day notice overstates the amount due, and does not contain the contact information of the lessor, thus it is fatally defective and will not support an unlawful detainer action.”

The court’s only task in ruling on a demurrer is to determine whether the complaint states a cause of action. Moore v. Regents of University of California, 51 Cal.3d 120, 125 (1990). The court treats “the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law”; considers “matters which may be judicially noticed”; and gives “the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” Evans v. City of Berkeley, 38 Cal.4th 1, 6 (2006) [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]. The court also considers the reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the properly pleaded material facts. Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal.4th 1075, 1083 (2005).

Plaintiff does not allege service of a three-day notice to quit or pay rent. Therefore, CCP § 1161(2) does not apply. The demurrer based on failure to comply with that statute is without merit.

For purposes of demurrer, the court must accept as true the allegation that there was an oral agreement to lease the premises. Rahimi’s contention that there is a written lease is a matter to be addressed at trial.

For the foregoing reasons, the court overrules defendant Sharon Rahimi’s demurrer to plaintiff Tiffany Rochel’s complaint. Defendant Sharon Rahimi shall file an answer to the complaint on or before December 23, 2019.