DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
25-01471820·orange·Civil·Landlord-Tenant
The Demurrer is OVERRULED as to the first cause of action for breach of warranty of habitability. The Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action. The Motion to Strike is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Makoff vs. Casa Monterrey, LLC

Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint; Motion to Strike

Hearing date
May 12, 2026
Department
C25
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

DemurrerMotion to Strike

Causes of action

Breach of Warranty of HabitabilityFraud/ConcealmentNegligent MisrepresentationIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Parties

PlaintiffMadison Makoff
DefendantCasa Monterrey, LLC dba Casa Monterrey Apartments

Ruling

The Demurrer is OVERRULED as to the first cause of action for breach of warranty of habitability. (Peviani v. Arbors at California Oaks Property Owner, LLC (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 874, 891; Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 637.) The Court notes that Defendant’s argument that “Plaintiff has failed to include specific dates when notices of such violations were given to a governmental agency” is of no consequence because such information is not an element to the cause of action for breach of implied warranty of habitability. The Complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for breach of implied warranty of habitability based on the water leakage issues and presence of toxic mold. The Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the fifth cause of action for fraud/concealment, sixth cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, and seventh cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff sufficiently states these causes of action except that Plaintiff fails to plead who fraudulent concealed and negligently misrepresented the habitability of the apartment and when such statements or concealments were made with the requisite specificity to state such claims against the corporate Defendant. The intent element of these causes of action lacks the requisite specificity based on Defendant’s status as a corporation.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share