This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/21/2021 at 09:03:38 (UTC).

SANGIL HAN VS HOMERO HERNANDEZ, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 07/16/2021 SANGIL HAN filed a Property - Commercial Eviction lawsuit against HOMERO HERNANDEZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is YOLANDA OROZCO. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6096

  • Filing Date:

    07/16/2021

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Property - Commercial Eviction

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

YOLANDA OROZCO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HAN SANGIL

Defendants

HERNANDEZ HOMERO

HERNANDEZ LUPITA A.

RAMOS ANDREA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SARKISSIAN AREG A.

Defendant Attorney

THOMAS RIKISHA DIONNE

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

11/1/2021: Request for Dismissal

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: DEFENDANT'S SUBMISSION OF JUDG...) OF 11/01/2021

11/1/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: DEFENDANT'S SUBMISSION OF JUDG...) OF 11/01/2021

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: DEFENDANT'S SUBMISSION OF JUDG...)

11/1/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: DEFENDANT'S SUBMISSION OF JUDG...)

Order - Dismissal

11/1/2021: Order - Dismissal

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE)

9/14/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

9/7/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession

7/26/2021: Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession

Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

7/27/2021: Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

7/27/2021: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

7/27/2021: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

7/27/2021: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

7/27/2021: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION

8/2/2021: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION

Declaration - DECLARATION EX PARTE APPLICATION

8/2/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION EX PARTE APPLICATION

Declaration - DECLARATION OF RIKISHA D. THOMAS RE: MISTAKE ON PLEADINGS

8/3/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF RIKISHA D. THOMAS RE: MISTAKE ON PLEADINGS

Notice of Ruling

8/3/2021: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION)

8/3/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION)

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

8/3/2021: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

15 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/15/2021
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2021
  • Docketat 3:00 PM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (ReDefendant's submission of Judgment of Dismissal) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2021
  • DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal (- NOT ENTERED 11/01/2021); Filed by SANGIL HAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Defendant's submission of Judg...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/01/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Defendant's submission of Judg...) of 11/01/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2021
  • Docketat 3:00 PM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Non-Appearance Case Review (ReDefendant's submission of Judgment of Dismissal) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2021
  • DocketOpposition (of Plaintiff to Defendants' Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint -[Hrg: 09/14/2021]); Filed by SANGIL HAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
12 More Docket Entries
  • 07/26/2021
  • DocketPrejudgment Claim of Right to Possession; Filed by Andrea Ramos (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2021
  • DocketNotice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) ((LUPITA A. HERNANDEZ)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2021
  • DocketNotice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) ((ALL OCCUPANTS)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by SANGIL HAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by SANGIL HAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2021
  • DocketSupplemental Cover Sheet and Allegations for Unlawful Detainer - Complaint; Filed by SANGIL HAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2021
  • DocketNotice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) ((HOMERO HERNANDEZ)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by SANGIL HAN (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: 21STCV26096 Hearing Date: September 14, 2021 Dept: 31

DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.Background

\r\n\r\n

This unlawful detainer action concerns the real property\r\nlocated at 2615 W. 7 St., Los Angeles, CA 90057 (the “Subject Premises”). The\r\nSubject Premises are owned by Plaintiff Sangil Han (“Plaintiff”) and were leased to Defendants Homero Hernandez,\r\nLupita A. Hernandez, and Andrea Ramos (collectively, the “Defendants”), as part\r\nof a commercial tenancy pursuant to a written lease agreement.

\r\n\r\n

On July 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant action’s\r\ncomplaint (“Complaint”) asserting a cause of action for unlawful detainer. Plaintiff\r\nalleges that Defendants failed to vacate the Subject Premises after Plaintiff\r\nserved Defendants with a 15-Day Notice to Pay or Quit the Subject Premises on\r\nJune 22, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

Subsequently, on July 27, 2021, Defendants filed the\r\npending Demurrer To Complaint (without\r\na Motion to Strike), which was later amended on August 3, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

In turn, Plaintiff filed opposition papers to the pending\r\ndemurrer on September 9, 2021.

\r\n\r\n

Defendants have not yet filed any reply papers in\r\nresponse.

\r\n\r\n

Legal Standard

\r\n\r\n

Standard of Review –\r\nDemurrer

\r\n\r\n

A demurrer tests the\r\nsufficiency of the pleading at issue as a matter of law, i.e., it raises issues\r\nof law, not fact, regarding the form or content of the opposing party's\r\npleading (complaint, petition, answer or cross-complaint). (Code Civ.\r\nProc., §§ 422.10, 589; see Donabedian\r\nv. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) The grounds for a\r\ndemurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable\r\nmatters. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30(a); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d\r\n311, 318.) Concerning the legal sufficiency of a pleading, the sole issue on\r\ndemurrer is whether the facts pleaded, if true, state a valid cause of action –\r\ni.e., if the complaint pleads facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.\r\n(See LiMandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 326, 339; see also\r\nCode Civ. Proc., § 425.10(a)–In order to plead a cause of action, the complaint\r\nmust contain a “statement of facts constituting the cause of action, in\r\nordinary and concise language.”)

\r\n\r\n

A general demurrer\r\nadmits the truth of all factual, material allegations properly pled in the\r\nchallenged pleading, regardless of possible difficulties of proof. (Blank,\r\nsupra, 39 Cal.3d at 318.) Thus, no matter how unlikely or improbable,\r\nplaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on\r\nthe demurrer. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123\r\nCal.App.3d 593, 604.) Nevertheless, this rule does not\r\napply to allegations expressing mere conclusions of law, or allegations\r\ncontradicted by the exhibits to the complaint or by matters of which judicial\r\nnotice may be taken. (Vance v. Villa Park Mobilehome Estates (1995) 36\r\nCal.App.4th 698, 709.) A general demurrer does not admit contentions,\r\ndeductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts\r\nimpossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take\r\njudicial notice. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at 318.)

\r\n\r\n

Pursuant to Code Civ.\r\nProc., sections 430.10(e) and (f), the party against whom a complaint has been\r\nfiled may object by demurrer to the pleading on the grounds that the pleading\r\ndoes not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or that the\r\npleading is uncertain, ambiguous and/or unintelligible. It is an abuse of\r\ndiscretion to sustain a demurrer if there is a reasonable probability that the\r\ndefect can be cured by amendment. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles\r\n(2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1082, as modified (Dec. 23, 2003).)

\r\n\r\n

Furthermore, under Code\r\nCiv. Proc., section 1170, a defendant in an unlawful detainer proceeding may\r\nanswer or demur to a complaint. (Id.) Code Civ. Proc., section 1177, provides that all provisions of law\r\ncontained in Part 2 of the Code\r\nCiv. Proc. are otherwise generally applicable to unlawful detainer actions,\r\nunless other procedures are specified in the unlawful detainer statutes. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

However, the rule of\r\nliberal construction of pleadings provided by Code Civ. Proc., section 452, is\r\ninapplicable in unlawful detainer actions because an unlawful detainer is an\r\naction seeking forfeiture and is a summary proceeding in which the defendant’s\r\nnormal procedural rights are limited. Thus, courts strictly construe the\r\nstatutory procedures that regulate unlawful detainers and require strict\r\ncompliance with all statutory requirements. (Civ. Code, § 1442; see also\r\nKwok, supra, 130 Cal.App.3d at 599; Briggs v. Electronic Memories\r\n& Magnetic (1975) 53 Cal. App.3d 900, 905; Liebovich v. Shahrokhkany\r\n(1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 511, 513.)

\r\n\r\n

Discussion

\r\n\r\n

The Defendants’\r\nDemurrer is Sustained without Leave to Amend

\r\n\r\n

Here,\r\nDefendants generally demur to the unlawful detainer Complaint on the grounds\r\nthat 1) the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit (“NTQ”) served on Defendants is\r\ndefective in that it does not contain the information required by Code Civ.\r\nProc., section 1161(2), and 2) the NTQ overstates the amount due, and is\r\nthus it is fatally defective. Thus, Defendants assert that the Complaint fails\r\nto sufficiently state facts to constitute the Complaint’s cause of action.\r\n(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e).)

\r\n\r\n

California\r\nUnlawful Detainer Law

\r\n\r\n

For a complaint to sound in unlawful\r\ndetainer, it must allege that the tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer under\r\nCode Civ. Proc., section 1161. (Stancil v. Superior Court (2021)\r\n11 Cal.5th 381, 395.) To state a cause\r\nof action for an unlawful detainer claim for nonpayment of rent, the complaint\r\nmust allege that

\r\n\r\n

1) \r\nthe tenant is in possession of the premises;

\r\n\r\n

2) \r\nthat possession is without permission;

\r\n\r\n

3) \r\nthe tenant is in default for nonpayment of rent;

\r\n\r\n

4) \r\nthe tenant has been properly served with a written\r\nthree-day notice; and

\r\n\r\n

5) \r\nthe default continues after the three-day notice period\r\nhas elapsed.[1]

\r\n\r\n

In\r\naddition, an unlawful detainer complaint:

\r\n\r\n

1) \r\nmust be\r\nverified;

\r\n\r\n

2) \r\nset\r\nforth the facts on which the plaintiff seeks to recover;

\r\n\r\n

3) \r\ndescribe\r\nthe real property with reasonable certainty;

\r\n\r\n

4) \r\nstate\r\nthe amount of rent in default, if applicable; and

\r\n\r\n

5) \r\nspecifically\r\nstate the method of service of notice of termination.[2]

\r\n\r\n

A\r\ncomplaint that does not comply with the notice requirements fails to state a\r\ncause of action for unlawful detainer and the court lacks both personal and\r\nsubject matter jurisdiction. (Kwok, supra, 130 Cal.App.3d at\r\n599-600.)

\r\n\r\n

With respect to the contents of a NTQ, a tenant\r\nis entitled to a 3-day NTQ which must state the correct amount of overdue rent.\r\n(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1161(2), 1162(a)(4).) While an overstatement of rent owed\r\ninvalidates the NTQ, an understatement is not fatal.

\r\n\r\n

There have also been some recent additions to\r\nthe NTQ requirements for tenants, etc. In late August 2020, the state Legislature\r\npassed Assembly Bill 3088, the COVID-19 Tenant Rights Act (the “State Law”). The\r\nState Law provides that a NTQ seeking unpaid rent from March 1, 2020, to June\r\n30, 2021(“Covered time period“), must give a 15-day NTQ (excluding weekends & holidays)\r\nrather than a 3-day. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1179.02, 1179.03(b)-(c).)

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff’s Notice to Quit is Fatally Defective

\r\n\r\n

Here, the\r\nCourt finds that the Complaint does not sufficiently state facts to constitute\r\nthe cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e).)

\r\n\r\n

To begin\r\nwith, Plaintiff’s 15-day NTQ does not clearly state the relevant rental time\r\nperiod or amount of rent past due, in accordance with Code Civ. Proc., section 1161(2). (Complaint, Exh. B, p. 1.) The\r\nNTQ claims only an estimated total amount due for both monthly rent and\r\nadditional rental obligations but does not specify which rental obligations or\r\neven which part of the estimated total amount is monthly rent and which part is\r\nadditional rental obligation. (Id.) Consequently, it is impossible for\r\nDefendants to determine where the amount of $19,030.07 came from. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff\r\nattempts to draw a distinction between the NTQ requirements for a residential\r\ntenancy and a commercial tenancy. However, the Plaintiff cites no caselaw or\r\nstatute on point that explicitly supports Plaintiff’s position. In any case,\r\n“[i]t has long been recognized that the unlawful detainer statutes are to be\r\nstrictly construed and that relief not statutorily authorized may not be given\r\ndue to the summary nature of the proceedings. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Underwood,\r\nsupra, 133 Cal.App.4th at pp. 136–137; see Kwok, supra, 130\r\nCal.App.3d at 599–600.) Code Civ.\r\nProc., section 1161(2), expressly provides that in an unlawful detainer\r\naction for rent past due, a notice must be served “…stating the amount that is\r\ndue…” (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

According\r\nto the Complaint, the current monthly rent is $3,414.76 payable in advance on\r\nthe first of each month. (Complaint, ¶ 2.) The Complaint also states that “Defendants\r\nhave failed to pay rent for close to one year through the present.” (Complaint,\r\n¶ 4.) If true, then past due rent would accumulate near to a total of\r\n$40,000.00 (3,414.76 (monthly rent due) x 12 months = 40,977.12.) However, it\r\nis impossible to determine whether the $19,030.07 estimated by Plaintiff is the\r\nfigure it has assigned for 12 months or less of rent due. Thus, the Court\r\ncannot determine whether the amount stated in the NTQ is an over or\r\nunderestimation.

\r\n\r\n

Further,\r\nthe NTQ conflates past rent due with other rental obligations and in doing so\r\nfails to precisely state past rent due amount. (Complaint, Exh. B, p. 1.) In\r\nconflating past rent due with other rental obligations, landlords deprive tenants\r\nof a fair opportunity to pay rent as contemplated under the unlawful detainer\r\nstatutes. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161(2).)

\r\n\r\n

Accordingly,\r\nthe Complaint does not sufficiently state facts to constitute the unlawful\r\ndetainer cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e).)

\r\n\r\n

Conclusion

\r\n\r\n

Therefore, the Court SUSTAINS Defendants Homero\r\nHernandez, Lupita A. Hernandez, and Andrea Ramos’s Demurrer without leave to\r\namend. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.10(e), 1170.)

\r\n\r\n

A judgment of dismissal shall be presented by Defendants.

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff to give notice.

\r\n\r\n

The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled\r\nhearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be\r\nscheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect\r\ntechnology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all\r\ntheir matters. All masking protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in\r\nthe courtrooms.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

[1] Code Civ. Proc., § 1161(2); see\r\nBorsuk v. Appellate Division of\r\nSuperior Court (2015) 242\r\nCal.App.4th 607, 613 citing Davidson v. Quinn (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d\r\nSupp. 9, 11.

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n

[2] Code Civ. Proc., § 1166(a)(1)–(5).

\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
"
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where HERNANDEZ HOMERO is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer THOMAS RIKISHA DIONNE