THE CROSSINGS PHASE I, L.P. VS. SUSAN MILLER, ET AL

6/25/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 23 of 25

UD LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2026

2:00 PM LINE: 1 26-UDL-00551 THE CROSSINGS PHASE I, L.P. VS. SUSAN MILLER, ET AL

THE CROSSINGS PHASE I, L.P. JULIENNE H COPON SUSAN MILLER JULIET M BRODIE

DEFENDANT SUSAN MILLER’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons stated below, the demurrer of Defendants Susan and Benjamin Miller to the complaint for unlawful detainer filed by Plaintiff The Crossings, Phase I, L.P. on May 11, 2026, is OVERRULED.

Defendants shall file an answer within five (5) calendar days after service of written notice of entry of this order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(g); Code Civ. Proc., § 472b.)

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of MIMG CLXXII Retreat on 6th, LLC v. Miller (Iowa 2025) 16 N.W.3d 489, a non-controlling Iowa Supreme Court decision, is GRANTED to the extent the Court may consider decisional law from another state and the existence of court records. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subds. (a), (d), 453.) The Court does not take judicial notice of the truth of any disputed factual assertions in that decision. (Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 882.)

BACKGROUND

This is an unlawful detainer action for nonpayment of rent concerning the residential premises located at 1101 National Avenue, Unit 1108, San Bruno, California 94066 (the “subject property”). Plaintiff and Defendants are parties to a lease agreement for the subject property. The complaint alleges that Defendants breached the lease by failing to pay rent.

On March 18, 2026, Plaintiff served Defendants with a written notice requiring them to pay rent within three days or quit within 30 days pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (2). The notice identified April 20, 2026, as the 30-day vacate deadline. Defendants did not comply with the notice and remain in possession of the subject property. Plaintiff filed this action on May 11, 2026.

Defendants demur to the complaint on the ground that the notice is defective under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) because, according to Defendants, the CARES Act required Plaintiff to give them 30 days to cure the alleged nonpayment, not merely 30 days to vacate. Defendants rely

6/25/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 24 of 25

on Sherwood Auburn, LLC v. Pinzon (2022) 24 Wn.App.2d 664, 671–672. Defendants contend a demurrer is proper under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e), because service of a valid statutory notice is an element of an unlawful detainer cause of action. (Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607, 611.)

Plaintiff opposes the demurrer, contending that Sherwood is non-controlling and that Plaintiff’s notice complied with the CARES Act because Defendants were given at least 30 days’ notice to vacate. Plaintiff further contends that California law does not require a 30-day notice to pay rent. Plaintiff also relies on noncontrolling authority holding that the CARES Act’s 30-day notice requirement does not apply to rent defaults arising after the temporary moratorium period. (MIMG CLXXII Retreat on 6th, LLC v. Miller (Iowa 2025) 16 N.W.3d 489.)

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleading, not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. It therefore lies only where the defect appears on the face of the pleading or from matters properly subject to judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.10, subd. (e), 430.30, 430.70.) The Court treats a demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) “All that is required of a plaintiff, as a matter of pleading ... is that his complaint set forth the essential facts of the case with reasonable precision and with sufficient particularity to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action.” (Rannard v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 149, 156–157 [citation and internal quotation marks omitted].)

DISCUSSION

The rules of statutory construction are straightforward. The Court first looks to the statutory text and gives the words their ordinary meaning. If the text is clear and unambiguous, the inquiry ordinarily ends. (In re Marriage of McIntyre & Shayan (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 76, 82, review denied Jan. 15, 2025.)

The CARES Act provides that a lessor of a covered dwelling unit “may not require the tenant to vacate the covered dwelling unit before the date that is 30 days after the date on which the lessor provides the tenant with a notice to vacate.” (15 U.S.C. § 9058(c)(1).) It also provides that the lessor “may not issue a notice to vacate under paragraph (1) until after the expiration” of the 120-day moratorium period beginning March 27, 2020. (15 U.S.C. § 9058(b), (c)(2).)

The Court need not decide, on this demurrer, whether the CARES Act’s 30-day notice provision remains generally applicable to post-moratorium rent defaults. Even assuming the subject property is a covered dwelling and the CARES Act notice provision applies, Defendants have not shown a defect on the face of the complaint. Section 9058(c)(1) refers to a 30-day notice to vacate; it does not state that a tenant must receive 30 days to cure nonpayment of rent. Sherwood Auburn reads the statute differently, but it is non-controlling, and Defendants cite no controlling California or federal authority requiring this Court to follow that construction.

Here, the complaint alleges that Plaintiff served the notice on March 18, 2026. The notice required Defendants to pay rent within three days or quit within 30 days, and it set April 20, 2026, as the vacate deadline. Plaintiff did not file this action until May 11, 2026. Thus, even assuming the CARES Act applies, the

6/25/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 25 of 25

face of the complaint shows that Defendants received more than 30 days’ notice to vacate before this action was filed. The notice also complied with the three-day pay-or-quit procedure required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (2). Because Defendants raise no other challenge to the sufficiency of the complaint, the demurrer is OVERRULED.

Defendants shall file an answer within five (5) calendar days after service of written notice of entry of this order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(g); Code Civ. Proc., § 472b.)

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with this ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide notice of the ruling to all appearing parties as required by law. The Court further directs the parties’ attention to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) (eff. Jan. 1, 2024) regarding the form of proposed orders.

Posted: 3:00 P.M.