Leticia Castillo v. Natalie Aguirre, et al

Case Number

24CV03379

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 07/29/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Demurrer of Defendants Natalie Aguirre and Deven Lopez to Plaintiff Leticia Castillo’s Unlawful Detainer Complaint

Tentative Ruling

Leticia Castillo v. Natalie Aguirre, et al.                              

Case No. 24CV03379

Hearing Date: July 29, 2024                                                   

HEARING:              Demurrer of Defendants Natalie Aguirre and Deven Lopez to Plaintiff Leticia Castillo’s Unlawful Detainer Complaint

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Leticia Castillo: Self Represented

                                    For Defendants Natalie Aguirre and Deven Lopez: Mark Cardona, Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County

                                                                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

The demurrer of defendants Natalie Aguirre and Deven Lopez to plaintiff’s complaint is sustained without leave to amend.

Background:

This action was commenced on June 17, 2024, by the filing of the unlawful detainer complaint by plaintiff Leticia Castillo (“plaintiff”) against defendants Natalie Aguirre and Deven Lopez (collectively “defendants”).

As alleged in the complaint:

This action pertains to property located at 605 Kentia Avenue, Apartment 1, Santa Barbara, within the city limits of Santa Barbara. (Complaint, ¶ 3.) Plaintiff is the “Master Tenant.” (Complaint, ¶ 4.)

On June 6, 2022, defendants moved into the premises, with the permission of plaintiff, and agreed to pay $0 in rent. (Complaint, ¶ 6 & Addendum.) Defendants were only supposed to stay at the property for a few days. (Ibid.)

The tenancy was terminated for at-fault just cause pursuant to Civil Code section 1946.2, subdivision (b)(1). (Complaint, ¶ 8.)

Defendants were served with 3-Day Notice to Quit on June 13, 2024. (Complaint, ¶¶ 9, 10 & Exh. 2.)

Plaintiff alleges that defendants have been destroying plaintiff’s property and causing nuisance by mentally and verbally abusing plaintiff. (Ibid.)

On June 17, 2024, plaintiff filed supplemental allegations that: “(a) There was never a rental agreement between myself and my granddaughter and her boyfriend. They asked me to stay at my property for a few days. after they got evicted from their last property. I never agreed to let them stay through any rental/monetary agreement. I do not want them in my property. (b) They are causing permanent damage.”

Although the court may not, and will not, consider it, the court does note that plaintiff previously attempted to evict defendants in Case No. 24CV01098. Defendants demurred to the complaint in that action and the demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff did not amend the complaint. Rather, she filed the present action.

Defendants now demur to the present case on the grounds that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to support a cause of action because plaintiff failed to allege service of the minimum 30-day notice require under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (1), and Civil Code section 789.

Plaintiff has not filed opposition or any other responsive document to the demurrer.

Analysis:

“The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:

“(a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading.

“(b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue.

“(c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.

“(d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties.

“(e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

“(f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible.

“(g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.

“(h) No certificate was filed as required by Section 411.35.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.)

“[A] court must treat a demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, it does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” (Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut v. Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 341, 358, citing Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

“It has long been recognized that the unlawful detainer statutes are to be strictly construed and that relief not statutorily authorized may not be given due to the summary nature of the proceedings. The statutory requirements in such proceedings must be followed strictly, otherwise a landlord’s remedy is an ordinary suit for breach of contract with all the delays that remedy normally involves and without restitution of the demised property.” (WDT-Winchester v. Nilsson (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 516, 526.)

“To establish that a cause of action has been adequately pled, a plaintiff must demonstrate he or she has alleged ‘facts sufficient to establish every element of that cause of action.’ [Citation.]” (Williams v. Sacramento River Cats Baseball Club, LLC (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 280, 286.)\

Defendants are correct in their assertion that they are tenants at will. “A permissive occupation of real estate, where no rent is reserved or paid and no time agreed on to limit the occupation, is a tenancy at will.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Borden v. Stiles (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 337, 347-348 (Borden); see also Miller v. Elite Ins. Co. (1980) 100 Cal.App.3d 739, 750 [“a tenancy . . . may be created by occupancy by consent”]; Miller v. Smith (1960) 179 Cal.App.2d 114, 117 [entry onto premises with owner’s permission while lease negotiations are ongoing creates a tenancy at will].)

Though a tenancy at will is terminable at the will of either party, a tenant does not begin to hold unlawfully until the tenancy is terminated. (Borden, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th at pp. 347-348.) To terminate a tenancy at will, a landlord must give “notice in writing to the tenant, in the manner prescribed by Section 1162 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to remove from the premises within a period of not less than 30 days, to be specified in the notice.” (Civ. Code, § 789; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 1161, subd. (1); Tracy v. Donovan (1918) 37 Cal. App. 350, 351.)

In the complaint, plaintiff has failed to allege service of the minimum 30-day notice required under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (1), and Civil Code section 789. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to allege strict compliance with statutory requirements. For this reason, the court will sustain the demurrer of defendants.

As it is the notice itself that is defective, the complaint is not capable of amendment to state an unlawful detainer cause of action. Should plaintiff wish to go forward with the eviction, she must begin again with legally sufficient notice and comply with all applicable statutes.