EDITH DOLORES HERNANDEZ VS MARIA HERNANDEZ

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC11003    Hearing Date: February 25, 2020    Dept: 26

Hernandez v. Hernandez, et al.

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.31, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Maria Hernandez’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant to file and serve an Answer within ten (10) days.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Edith Dolores Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of lease agreement against Defendant Maria Hernandez (“Defendant”) on December 2, 2019. Defendant filed the instant Demurrer on January 6, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

The Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration that satisfies the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. (Demurrer, Sanchez Decl., ¶¶4-6.) Defendant demurs to the single cause of action for failure to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) and uncertainty pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f).

The Court will not rule on the demurrer for uncertainty, as special demurrers are not permitted in a court of limited jurisdiction. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).) Regarding the demurrer for failure to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action, the Court finds that the elements of a breach of contract cause of action are adequately alleged. The Complaint alleged that parties entered into an oral agreement whereby Plaintiff would pay rent in exchange for “a home with all the running services expected of a habitable place and living environment.” (Compl., ¶BC-1.) Defendant allegedly breached the agreement by failing to provide a home that conforms to the standards of a habitable place. (Id. at ¶BC-2.) Plaintiff has allegedly performed her part of the agreement by paying full rent and has been damaged as a result of Defendant’s conduct. (Id. at ¶BC-3.)

The Court does not find, as Defendant contends, that there is any ambiguity in whether the Complaint pertains to an implied covenant versus an oral agreement. The Complaint plainly alleges the existence and breach of an oral agreement. Nor does the Court find that the statement in the Complaint that “more specified facts will be submitted shortly in the form of an amended complaint” to admit any defect or inadequacy in the Complaint as alleged. (Id. at ¶BC-6.) This appears to simply be a statement of additional information and proof in support of Plaintiff’s claim.

Defendant Maria Hernandez’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant to file and serve an Answer within ten (10) days.

Court clerk to give notice.