Defendant’s Demurrer to Complaint
June 12, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar
HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ 9:00 AM Line 9/UD Line 2 25-UDL-01765 CAROL MALCOLM TRUSTEE OF THE CAROL MALCOLM REVOCABLE TRUST VS. MUKTA DHANUKA, ET AL
CAROL MALCOLM TRUSTEE OF THE CAROL TODD ROTHBARD MALCOLM REVOCABLE TRUST MUKTA DHANUKA PRO SE
Defendant’s Demurrer to Complaint
TENTATIVE RULING:
This is defendant Mukta Dhanuka’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff has filed written opposition. After review of all of the relevant pleadings, the Demurrer is OVERRULED.
Legal Standards for Demurrer
California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.30 provides that an objection to a complaint may be made via demurrer when the ground for that objection appears on the face of the complaint, or via judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.30, subd. (a).)
Code of Civil Procedure Section 430.10 sets forth eight possible grounds for demurrer. A demurrer founded on its subdivision (e), which arises when an allegation essential to a cause of action is missing, is called a “general demurrer.” (McKenney v. Purepac Pharm. Co. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 72, 77.) Accordingly, “[a] ruling on a general demurrer is thus a method of deciding the merits of a cause of action on assumed facts without a trial.” (Ibid. (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis added).)
Since a general demurrer “admits the truth of all material factual allegations in the complaint,” a plaintiff’s ability to prove these allegations “does not concern the reviewing court. The plaintiff need only plead facts showing that they may be entitled to some relief.” (Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 604 (internal quotations omitted) (superseded by statute on other grounds).) However, a court reviewing a demurrer does not “assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” (Aubry v.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.) Moreover, when a plaintiff “has stated a cause of action under any possible legal theory,” it is error to sustain a demurrer. (Bush v. California Conservation Corps (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 194, 200 (emphasis added).)
Defendant only raises Section 430.10(e) as a basis for this demurrer, by essentially attempting to make three distinct arguments, which will be addressed in turn.
1. Defendant claims the Tenant Protection Act (“TPA”) requires a “second 3-day notice for curable breaches.” Demurrer, pg. 4, line 11. Subsequently, Defendant claims Plaintiff failed to alleged compliance with the TPA. Demurrer, pg. 5, lines 6-7. There is no legal authority for these bare propositions, and Plaintiff correctly points out that “default in payment of rent” is Just Cause and there is no “second notice” requirement. Opposition, pg. 2, lines 2-5. Nor is there any requirement of alleging compliance with the TPA generally. Defendant’s arguments fail.
June 12, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 30 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ 2. Defendant claims the 3-Day Notice is improper because it does not state when the notice period started or ended. Demurrer, pg. 5, lines 9-18. Defendant therein concedes the 3-Day Notice as attached to the Complaint, and the Court sees it is indeed attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint. Defendant’s assertion is false. The 3-Day Notice has a specific box entitled “Important – Calculating your Deadline to Comply” and has a stated service date of “12/10/2025.” The Court finds that this 3-day Notice, is clearly distinguishable from the notice in Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 433. Defendant’s argument fails.
As such, the demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant is to file its Answer to the Complaint within ten (10) calendar days after this hearing, i.e filed by June 22, 2026.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept20@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court by Minute Order. The Court will prepare the Order after hearing.