QUIN, et al. vs GAJANO-BLYTHE

25CV000001: QUIN, et al. vs GAJANO-BLYTHE 07/23/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Amended Complaint; filed by Jane Gajano-Blythe (Defendant) CRS# 376138670875 in Department 518

Tentative Ruling - 07/21/2026 Mark Fickes

The Demurrer filed by Jane Gajano-Blythe on 04/01/2026 is Overruled.

Background

On February 17, 2026, Plaintiffs Aimee Quin and Alexandre Quin filed a complaint against Defendant Jane Gajano-Blythe and Does 1 – 10, alleging causes of action for breach of lease, and tortious intentional breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, related to Defendant’s tenancy at the property located at 2831 7th Street, Berkeley, CA 94710.

On April 1, 2026, Defendant Dr. Jane Gajano-Blythe filed a demurrer claiming that the complaint fails because it states insufficient facts to support a cause of action in large part because it fails to comply with the statute of limitations, fails to provide fair notice, and is uncertain.

Legal Standard

“We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed. Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 [citations omitted].)

“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 [including that] the pleading does not state fact sufficient to constitute a cause of action” and that “the pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, ‘uncertain’ includes ambiguous and unintelligible.” (CCP § 430.10(e)and (f).)

Discussion

On January 27, 2026, this Court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend on statute limitations issues. At the time the parties were focused on whether equitable tolling applies to this case to toll the statute of limitations.

Currently, the opposition raises the novel argument that the statute of limitation is not an issue due to Berkeley’s local emergency ordinances during the COVID-19 pandemic which abated all rent obligations until April 30, 2023, and for that reason the four-year statute of limitations does not expire until April 30, 2027.

A statute of limitations runs from the occurrence of a breach. If the Berkeley COVID-19 25CV000001: QUIN, et al. vs GAJANO-BLYTHE 07/23/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Amended Complaint; filed by Jane Gajano-Blythe (Defendant) CRS# 376138670875 in Department 518 Emergency Response Ordinance deferred the deadline to pay back rent, then the statute of limitations would be extended.

Berkeley Municipal Code § 13.110.040 states, in relevant part:

A. Nothing in this Chapter shall relieve the tenant of liability for unpaid rent, which the landlord may seek after expiration of the Covered Period, or after the Transition Period if the tenant establishes a Covered Reason for Delayed Payment. Notwithstanding any lease provision to the contrary, a landlord may not charge or collect a late fee, fine, or interest for rent that is delayed by a Covered Reason for Delayed Payment. Landlords are encouraged to work with local agencies that will be making rental assistance available for qualifying tenants

1. For rent accrued through January 31, 2021, Tenants shall have until March 31, 2022, or the date adopted by state law, as applicable, to pay rent that was delayed by a Covered Reason for Delayed Payment unless the landlord and tenant come to a mutual repayment agreement ("Delayed Rent Payment Agreement").

2. For rent accrued beginning February 1, 2021, Tenants shall have until July 31, 2023, to pay rent that was delayed by a Covered Reason for Delayed Payment, or the period of time adopted by state law, as applicable, unless the landlord and tenant come to a mutual repayment agreement ("Delayed Rent Payment Agreement").

3. Notwithstanding any lease provision to the contrary, a landlord may not charge or collect a late fee, fine, or interest for rent that is delayed by a Covered Reason for Delayed Payment.

Therefore, Plaintiffs argue that the legal deadline to pay back rent was deferred, then the rent was not legally due until these extended dates, and a tenant could not be in breach of contract for non-payment until after these dates passed. This ordinance may extend the statute of limitation presuming that non-payment of rent was delayed by a covered reason.

A Covered Reason under Berkeley Municipal Code § 13.110.030 (c) means:

1. The basis for the eviction is nonpayment of rent, arising out of a material decrease in household, business, or other rental unit occupant(s)’s income (including, but not limited to, a material decrease in household income caused by layoffs or a reduction in the number of compensable hours of work, or to caregiving responsibilities, or a material decrease in business income caused by a reduction in opening hours or consumer demand), or material out-of-pocket medical expenses, or a reduction in the number of tenants living in the unit (including due to difficulty finding new tenants and/or subtenants willing and able to cover a sufficient share of rent) which reduces the ability of the remaining tenants to pay rent, or a rent increase that exceeds the Annual General

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV000001: QUIN, et al. vs GAJANO-BLYTHE 07/23/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Amended Complaint; filed by Jane Gajano-Blythe (Defendant) CRS# 376138670875 in Department 518 Adjustment for the current year; and

2. The decrease in household, business, or other rental unit occupant’s income or the expenses or reduction in number of tenants described in subparagraph (1) was caused by the impacts of COVID-19 pandemic, or by any local, state, or federal government response to COVID-19.

The FAC states that the Plaintiffs abandoned the building without notice on December 16, 2020, Landlord demanded payment of all the rent due and that remains unpaid. (FAC ¶¶ 37 – 39.) Defendant states in the demurrer that she “could not pay her rent during the pandemic” for a variety of factual reasons which are beyond the FAC. (Demurrer p.6.) Facts beyond the substance of the complaint may be needed to fully understand whether the non-payment was a covered reason as defined by the Berkeley Municipal Code. Thus, this issue cannot be resolved on a demurrer as extrinsic facts are needed. This issue may be raised again in a motion, like a motion for summary judgment, where extrinsic factual information can be considered.

Although the statute of limitations would normally be measured from the date of the breach, in 2020, the Berkeley Municipal Code may extend the date of that breach to 2023. “A demurrer based on a statute of limitations will not lie where the action may be, but is not necessarily, barred. In order for the bar of the statute of limitations to be raised by demurrer, the defect must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint; it is not enough that the complaint shows that the action may be barred.” (Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403 [internal citations omitted].)

Plaintiffs in the alternative make an equitable tolling argument that does not offer any additional facts than the initial complaint. To be clear, the Court does not find that equitable tolling exists based on the filing of the small claims action for the same reasons given in the Court’s order dated January 27, 2026.

However, due to the factual issues that remain as to the statute of limitations under the Berkeley Municipal Ordinances, the Court OVERRULES the demurrer.

---

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV000001: QUIN, et al. vs GAJANO-BLYTHE 07/23/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Amended Complaint; filed by Jane Gajano-Blythe (Defendant) CRS# 376138670875 in Department 518 copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person.

For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.

Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984

Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984

One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)

---

Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)