Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/22/2020 at 13:19:33 (UTC).

WEST TEMPLE APARTMENTS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS TEMPLE PARK CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 01/22/2020 WEST TEMPLE APARTMENTS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against TEMPLE PARK CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, INC , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0686

  • Filing Date:

    01/22/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

WEST TEMPLE APARTMENTS LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Defendants

KOHN TOBY

TEMPLE PARK CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

KOHN BARRY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

MORASSE STEVEN

 

Court Documents

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

1/22/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Summons - Summons on Complaint

1/22/2020: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

1/22/2020: Complaint - Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

1/22/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

1/22/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

1/22/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/25/2023
  • Hearing01/25/2023 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2021
  • Hearing07/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 07/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 01/25/2023 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: West Temple Apartments, LLC, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: Temple Park Convalescent Hospital, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant); Barry Kohn (Defendant); Toby Kohn (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: West Temple Apartments, LLC, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: Temple Park Convalescent Hospital, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant); Barry Kohn (Defendant); Toby Kohn (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: West Temple Apartments, LLC, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: Temple Park Convalescent Hospital, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant); Barry Kohn (Defendant); Toby Kohn (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: West Temple Apartments, LLC, a California limited liability company (Plaintiff); As to: Temple Park Convalescent Hospital, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant); Barry Kohn (Defendant); Toby Kohn (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC00686    Hearing Date: January 04, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., January 4, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: West Temple Apartments, LLC v. Temple Convalescent Hospital, Inc.

CASE NUMBER: 20STLC00686 COMPL. FILED: 01-22-20

NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: 06-21-21

DISC. MOT. C/O: 06-06-21

TRIAL DATE: 07-21-21

PROCEEDINGS: DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Temple Park Convalescent Hospital, Barry Kohn, and Toby Kohn

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff West Temple Apartments, LLC

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.10, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Temple Park Convalescent Hospital, Barry Kohn, and Toby Kohn’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED as to the first cause of action but OVERRULED as to the second cause of action. Plaintiff is granted 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND the first cause of action.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of December 30, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of December 30, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On January 22, 2020, Plaintiff West Temple Apartments, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of written lease and breach of written guaranty against Defendants Temple Park Convalescent Hospital, Inc. (“Temple Park”), Barry Kohn (“Barry”), and Toby Kohn (“Toby”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

Defendants filed the instant Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Demurrer”) on July 15, 2020. Plaintiff filed its Opposition on December 21, 2020. To date, no reply brief has been filed.

  1. Legal Standard

“The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its

case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to

affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.)

“A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint.” (Ivanoff v. Bank of

America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725.) The Court looks to whether “the complaint alleges

facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Id.) The Court does not

“read passages from a complaint in isolation; in reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we read the

complaint ‘as a whole and its parts in their context.’ [Citation.]” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,

N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 804.) The Court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded

factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of

which judicial notice has been taken.” (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.) “The court does not,

however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.]” (Durell v.

Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)

A general demurrer may be brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted or under section 430.10, subdivision (a), where the court has no jurisdiction over the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. All other grounds listed in Section 430.10, including uncertainty under subdivision (f), are special demurrers. Special demurrers are not allowed in limited jurisdiction courts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)

  1. Discussion

The demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Dem., Abramson Decl., ¶ 3, Exhs. 1, 2.)

  1. Lack of Jurisdiction

As an initial matter, the Court addresses Defendants’ contention that this Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter and that it belongs in small claims court. (Dem., p. 5:14-19.)

Limited jurisdiction courts, such as this one, have jurisdiction to hear matters in which the amount in controversy “amounts to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,0000) or less.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 86, subd. (a)(1).) (Emphasis added.) Defendants have not provided any authority demonstrating this Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter in which Plaintiff seeks $5,765.00 in damages.

  1. First Cause of Action – Breach of Written Lease as to Defendant West Temple

Defendants demur to the first cause of action on the basis that it fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and that it is uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible. (Dem., p. 1:6-11.) However, as noted above, the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear special demurrers, i.e., on the basis that the Complaint is uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible. Thus, the Court only considers the Demurrer on the basis that the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts.

“To establish a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must plead and prove (1) the existence of the contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) resulting damages to the plaintiff. [Citation.] ‘In an action based on a written contract, a plaintiff may plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language.’ [Citation.]” (Maxwell v. Dolezal (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 93, 97-98.)

Plaintiff alleges the following: (1) that Defendant West Temple leased real property commonly known as 2410 West Temple St., #1, Los Angeles, CA 90026 (the “Subject Property”) on or about December 2, 2009 pursuant to a written Standard Industrial/Commercial Multi-Tenant Lease; (2) that on or about January 1, 2010, Defendant West Temple entered into possession of the Subject Property; (3) that the term of the original lease was extended through December 2018 through a series of lease amendments; (4) that Defendant West Temple continued to occupy the Subject Property until February 28, 2019; (5) that the terms of the lease required Defendant West Temple to pay holdover rent for the months of January and February 2019, surrender the Subject Property in a satisfactory condition in accordance with the lease, pay late charges, pay interest, and pay attorney’s fees; (6) that Plaintiff demanded that Defendant West Temple pay $5,765.00, which included holdover rent, late fees, returned check fees, repairs, and legal fees; (7) that Defendant West Temple has not paid the requested amount under the lease; (8) that Plaintiff has performed all of its obligations as required by the lease except that performance which was prevented or excused by the conduct of Defendants; and (10) that Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendant West Temple’s failure to pay. (Compl., ¶¶ 1-12.)

Defendants argue Plaintiff did not allege he complied with Civil Code section 1950.5, subdivision (f) and notify Defendants of their right to request an initial inspection and walk-though of the Subject Property before the expiration of the lease so that Defendants could ameliorate any alleged damages to the Subject Property. (Dem., pp. 4:25-2.) However, Section 1950.5 applies to rental agreements for residential properties to be used as a dwelling, not to commercial leases such as this one. (Civ. Code § 1950.5, subdivision (a).)

Defendants also argue Plaintiff’s Complaint is devoid of allegations that Defendants “actually engaged in the conduct complained of.” (Dem., p. 4:23-25.) The Complaint does contain allegations that Defendant West Temple occupied the Subject Property for two months after the expiration of the extended lease and that as a result, Defendant West Temple must pay holdover rent. However, there are no allegations regarding the basis for the estimated $2,000.00 in repairs Plaintiff includes in its closing invoice. (Compl., ¶¶ 7, 8, Exh. 2.) Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts as to the element of breach. Plaintiff is GRANTED 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND the first cause of action.

  1. Second Cause of Action – Breach of Guaranty as to Defendants Toby and Barry

Defendants demur to the second cause of action on the basis that it fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against Defendants Barry and Toby. (Mot., p. 1:12-17.)

As with the first cause of action, “[t]o establish a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must plead and prove (1) the existence of the contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) resulting damages to the plaintiff. [Citation.] ‘In an action based on a written contract, a plaintiff may plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language.’ [Citation.]” (Maxwell v. Dolezal (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 93, 97-98.)

Plaintiff alleges the following: (1) that on or about December 2, 2009, Defendants Barry and Toby signed a personal guaranty to pay or perform on demand any and all debts, obligations, liabilities of Defendant West Temple under or arising from the lease; (2) that Plaintiff demanded Defendants Barry and Toby pay the sum of $5,765.00 to Plaintiff; (3) that Defendants Barry and Toby refused to pay the demanded amount; (4) that Plaintiff performed all of its obligations as required by the Guaranty or was otherwise excused from performance; and (5) that as a result of Defendant Barry and Toby’s breach, Plaintiff has been monetarily damaged. (Compl., ¶¶ 13-18, Exh. 3.)

Defendants argue the Demurrer should be sustained because Plaintiff failed to attach complete copies of exhibits, particularly for the personal guaranty for Defendants Barry and Toby. However, at the demurrer stage, the Court takes all proper allegations as true. (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.)

The Court finds the above allegations sufficient to constitute a breach of contract cause of action against Defendants Barry and Toby.

Thus, the Demurrer as to the second cause of action is OVERRULED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Temple Park Convalescent Hospital, Barry Kohn, and Toby Kohn’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED as to the first cause of action but OVERRULED as to the second cause of action. Plaintiff is granted 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND the first cause of action.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer MORASSE STEVEN