HARRIS vs SABBAGH

25CV155710: HARRIS vs SABBAGH 06/11/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT; filed by Juliane Sabbagh (Defendant) CRS# 584671205407 in Department 511

Tentative Ruling - 06/10/2026 Lupe Garcia

The Demurrer filed by Juliane Sabbagh on 05/12/2026 is Overruled.

NOTICE: All attorneys and unrepresented parties who contest the tentative ruling and request an opportunity to present their arguments at the hearing must notify all other parties of their intention to appear by telephone or in person no later than the day before the hearing, by 4:00 p.m. PT. Parties and attorneys must also formally indicate their objection on eCourt and by sending an email message to the Department 511 clerk at Dept511@alameda.courts.ca.gov. The parties and attorneys must clearly indicate in their email messages the name of the case and the case number. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the Court if the Court has not directed oral argument by its tentative ruling and notice of a party’s intent to appear is not received by the deadline. See California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1) and Alameda County Superior Court Local Rule 3.30(d).

The demurrer of Defendant Julianne Sabbagh to the Complaint for unlawful detainer filed by Plaintiff Lee R. Harris on November 21, 2025, pursuant to CCP § 430.10(e) and (f), is OVERRULED.

Plaintiff filed his Complaint for unlawful detainer against Defendant on November 21, 2025. The property is located at 3535 Mowry Avenue, in Fremont. Plaintiff’s claim is based on Defendant’s alleged failure to pay rent for the period from November 2024 to October 2025. See CCP § 1161(2). Plaintiff attached a copy of the February 27, 2018 Residential Lease Agreement and a copy of the Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit, served on October 31, 2025, to the Complaint pursuant to CCP § 1166(d)(1)(A).

Although it is generally not permitted to consider facts that are not pled in the Complaint or subject to judicial notice, the Court is authorized to review the content of the Lease Agreement and the Three-Day Notice and the proof of service in ruling on Defendant’s demurrer because they are exhibits attached to the Complaint. See Moran v. Prime Healthcare Mgmt., Inc. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1131, 1145-1146.

Defendant’s first claim in support of her demurrer is that Plaintiff did not state a cause of action against her for non-payment of rent because the Lease Agreement states that her monthly rent is $3,000.00, but the Three-Day Notice states that her monthly rent is only $2,900.00. Plaintiff states in the Three-Day Notice that Defendant owed $34,800.00 as of October 31, 2025. Plaintiff’s demand for $34,800.00 sets the monthly rent at only $2,900.00. Defendant’s contention does not support a ruling that Plaintiff’s Three-Day Notice is invalid because Plaintiff’s service of a notice that demands payment of an amount less than the amount disclosed in the Lease Agreement is acceptable.

See Gruzen v. Henry (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 515, 519 (“de minimis” overstatement of rent owed does not invalidate the notice); Cavanaugh v. High (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 714, 722 (overstatement of amount due is not fatal to an eviction action); and Lydon v. Beach (1928) 89 Cal.App. 69, 74 (same). Defendant’s alternative argument that 25CV155710: HARRIS vs SABBAGH 06/11/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT; filed by Juliane Sabbagh (Defendant) CRS# 584671205407 in Department 511 Plaintiff was required to include allegations explaining the difference in the monthly rent owed in the Lease Agreement and the Three-Day Notice is also not accepted.

Plaintiff is not required to explain why the Three-Day Notice demands an amount less than the amount reflected in the Lease Agreement. Finally, the Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff failed to comply with his pleading requirement set forth in CCP § 1161(2) merely because he demanded that Defendant pay “at least $34,800.00.” Plaintiff’s qualification of the amount of rent demanded does not change the unavoidable conclusion that Defendant had to pay $34,800.00 or risk being evicted pursuant to CCP § 1161(2).

Defendant’s next argument that Plaintiff’s Three-Day Notice is facially deficient because it does not advise her of the date of service for purposes of calculating the compliance date is without basis. The Court acknowledges that the court of appeal recently held that a Three-Day Notice may be invalid if the tenant is not properly advised of the date of service. See Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 433, 459 (notice did not comply with CCP § 1161(2) because the plaintiff alleged that the notice was served after the date that it was signed by the landlord).

Plaintiff’s Three-Day Notice attached to the Complaint indicates that it was served on Defendant on October 31, 2025. Plaintiff also attached a proof of service of notice indicating that Plaintiff’s process server, Robert Downing, served the notice by posting and mail, pursuant to CCP § 1162(a)(3), on October 31, 2025. The Court cannot base its ruling on the demurrer on Defendant’s claim that her copy of the Three-Day Notice did not include the October 31, 2025 date of service on it.

Finally, Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff’s Complaint is unduly vague, ambiguous and uncertain, pursuant to CCP § 430.10(f), because he did not specify whether the contractual basis of her obligation to pay rent is derived from a written contract, an amended written contract, an oral modification of the contract, or an implied month-to-month rental agreement. Plaintiff clearly alleges in the Complaint that Defendant’s tenancy was subject to the Residential Lease Agreement dated February 27, 2018. The Court cannot consider Defendant’s suggestion that the terms of her tenancy and obligation to pay rent were possibly amended by the parties after February 27, 2018. See CCP § 430.30(a) (court may not consider extrinsic facts when ruling on a demurrer).

The Court will prepare the order. The court clerk will mail a copy of the order to the parties. Plaintiff’s attorney shall file and serve the notice of entry of order by June 16, 2026. Defendant shall file and serve her Answer to the Complaint within five days of the date of service of the notice of entry of order.