EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC VS. MOTOYOSHI KOMORI ET AL

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD25678488 - August 25, 2025 Hearing date: August 25, 2025 Case number: CUD25678488 Case title: EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC VS. MOTOYOSHI KOMORI ET AL Case Number: | | CUD25678488 | Case Title: | | EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC VS. MOTOYOSHI KOMORI ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-08-25 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | DEMURRER to COMPLAINT | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Motion calendar for August 25, 2025, line 13.

Defendant's Demurrer to Complaint is SUSTAINED in part, with leave to amend within 5 days of notice of entry of order, and OVERRULED in part.

The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend on the ground that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action because it does not state in what manner the Notice to Permanently Perform Covenant or Quit was served. CCP 1166(a)(5) requires the Complaint to state specifically the method used to serve the notice or notices upon which it is based. Plaintiff's Complaint here states on its face that it is based on service of two notices: a notice to quit under Civil Code 1946.2(c), and a prior notice to perform required by that same section.

Because Civil Code 1946.2(c) requires that a prior notice to perform must be given pursuant to CCP 1161(3), before a subsequent notice to quit, the Complaint is necessarily based on both of these notices, as a single notice does not meet the requirements of this section. Therefore, CCP 1166(a)(5) requires that the Complaint state specifically the method used to serve each of these notices. By failing to allege the method of service of the Notice to Permanently Perform Covenant or Quit, the Complaint here fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in compliance with CCP 1166(a)(5).

The Court notes that the Judicial Council Form UD-100 Complaint utilized by the plaintiff here also specifically directs plaintiff to provide information regarding service of each notice where, as here, a prior notice was served under Civil Code 1946.2(c), but plaintiff declined to do so. (Complaint, para. 9f-unchecked here.) The Complaint acknowledges that it is based on two notices, both in paragraph 9a(6) and by attaching both notices as directed by paragraph 9e. Plaintiff does not explain why it can then ignore the direction of paragraph 9f to allege service of both of these notices. To the extent plaintiff now contends that the Complaint is only based on one notice, and not two notices pursuant to Civil Code 1946.2(c), this contention contradicts the allegations on the face of the Complaint and is not proper for consideration on demurrer.

The demurrer is otherwise overruled. Each notice states that a ground enumerated in section 37.9(a) of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance is the landlord's dominant motive for possession, in compliance with section 37.9(c). Any uncertainty created by these statements does not render the Complaint so uncertain that defendant cannot reasonably respond, as the two notices are based on the same essential allegations of conduct. Further, the Complaint sufficiently alleges a landlord-tenant relationship because the Residential Lease attached as Exhibit 1 to the Complaint is between plaintiff and defendant, and states on the first page that plaintiff is the agent for the owner.