Case Number: EC062337 Hearing Date: June 06, 2014 Dept: B

The Complaint alleges that the Defendants are unlawfully detaining the Plaintiff’s property because they has failed to pay rent or quit the premises after the Plaintiffs served a notice to pay rent or quit.

This hearing concerns the Defendant’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that the Complaint lacks sufficient facts and that the cause of action is uncertain.

CCP section 430.10(e) authorizes the Court to sustain a demurrer on the ground that a cause of action lacks sufficient facts. The Defendant argues that the pleadings are lacking because the allegations of non-payment of rent are “lacking in factual allegations.”

For the purposes of ruling on a demurrer the Plaintiff’s allegations are assumed true and the Plaintiff’s ability to prove the allegation is of no concern for the purposes of ruling on the demurrer. Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 213-214. The Plaintiff alleges in paragraph 15 that the Defendant has not paid the monthly rental for May 1, 2014 to May 13, 2014 and that $12,954 is due and owing. This is assumed true and demonstrates that the Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient to demonstrate that the Defendant breached the lease agreement by failing to pay the rent due for May of 2014.

Therefore, the Court overrules the demurrer based on lack of sufficient facts.

CCP section 430.10(f) authorizes the Court to sustain a demurrer on the ground that the pleadings are uncertain. A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures. Khoury v. Maly’s of California Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616. A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only when the complaint is so bad that the defendant cannot reasonably respond because the defendant cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against the defendant. Id.

The Defendant offers no basis to find that the pleadings are so bad that he cannot respond. Further, a review of the pleadings reveals that the Defendant can determine the claim directed at it, which is unlawful detainer, and the issues to admit or deny, which are that he has failed to pay rent due under the rental agreement.

Therefore, the Court overrules the demurrer based on uncertainty.

In addition, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff filed the Complaint in the wrong courthouse and that it should be in the Pasadena Courthouse. This argument appears to be based on the rules regarding the location to file limited unlawful detainer cases. Under Local Rule 2.3(a)(2), limited unlawful detainer actions are filed in the courthouse that serves the zip code where the real property is located. Appendix 2.D lists the zip codes for Los Angeles County identifies the Courthouse that serves each zip code.

However, a review of the Plaintiff’s Complaint reveals that it is not a limited unlawful detainer action because the Plaintiff seeks over $25,000 in damages. The Plaintiff’s prayer for relief seeks past due rent of $12,954, additional rent and payment of a storage fee during an audit of $50,062.04, and additional rent and payment of storage fees for the fourth quarter of 2013 of $10,089.89. Since this exceeds $25,000, the Plaintiff’s Complaint is an unlimited civil action.

Under Local Rule 2.3(a)(2), an unlimited civil action may be filed in the Central District or in the district where a defendant resides, a contract is to be performed, or where a property is located. The Defendant offers no evidence that the Plaintiff filed the motion in the incorrect district. Instead, if the Defendant seeks a transfer, the Defendant must file a motion in Department 1 of the Central District under Local Rule 2.3(b).

Accordingly, the Court overrules the demurrer.