Source: https://ru.scribd.com/document/88285602/Defendant-s-Motion-to-Strike-Complaint-for-Unlawful-Detainer
Timestamp: 2020-07-03 17:45:29
Document Index: 351604135

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 435', '§ 430', '§430', '§ 430', '§ 1174', '§ 1161', '§ 1174', '§ 1161', '§ 435', '§ 436', '§ 436', '§ 425']

сохранитьСохранить «Defendant&amp;#39;s Motion to Strike Complaint for Unlawfu...» для последующего чтения
MOTION AND NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER
Date: April 9th, 2012 9:15 AM Department: 19 Judge: Hon. Kenneth Barnum
Action filed: February 24th, 2012
Trial Date: April 9th, 2012
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, on April 9th, 2012, at 9:15 AM, or as soon
thereafter as the matter can be heard, in Department 19 of the above-
entitled court, located at 191 North First Street, in San Jose, Defendant,
James Alan Bush, will, and hereby does, move, in limine, pursuant to
Code Civ. Proc. §§ 435 and 436 for an order striking the complaint on file
herein. The motion will be made on the ground that the complaint does
not truthfully allege that Plaintiff, Khoa Nguyen, has the legal capacity
to sue (i.e., as owner of the premises), in violation of Code Civ. Proc.
§ 430.10(b). This motion will also be made on the ground thjat the request
for back rent is improper, as is more fully explained in the attached
The motion will be based on this notice of motion, on the declaration
of the plaintiff and the supporting memorandum served and filed herewith,
on the records and files herein, and on such evidence as may be presented
at the hearing on the motion, which includes, but may not be limited to,
a certified document showing that ownership of the premises belongs to
Theresa Ziemkowski, and not the defendant.
Dated: April 5th, 2012
DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT FOR UNLAWFUL DETAINER
I, James Alan Bush, hereby declare:
1. I am the defendant in the above-captioned matter. I have personal
knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration, and if called to
testify, I could and would testify competently to the truth of the
facts as stated herein.
2. On February 2nd, 2012, the plaintiff hand-delivered a notice stating
that the apartment must be vacated for repairs and renovation. This
notice, which preceded any such order of eviction and repairs by the
City of San Jose, did not state that back rent was due, nor did it
specify any amount of rent due. It was neither preceded by nor followed
by any other notice to quit, including the requisite 30-day or 3-day
notices. Moreover, the unlawful detainer complaint was filed 23 days
3. The defendant admits to above-stated facts both in his complaint and
in his testimony proferred on April 4th, 2012, in this court.
4. As to the matter of true ownership of the premises, on April 6th,
2012, I obtained from the Recorder’s Office of the County of Santa
Clara a certified copy of the deed of trust, attached hereto as Exhibit
“A”, which shows that the plaintiff has transfered ownership of the
premises to Theresa Ziemkowski.
5. Consequently, the plaintiff is neither entitled to back rent, nor can
he lawfully bring a suit for unlawful detainer.
6. Therefore, it is the request of this court that this case be dismissed
against the defendant, and that the plaintiff take nothing by way of
of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this
declaration was executed on April 4th, 2012, at San Jose, California.
Dated: April 4th, 2012
TRANSFER OF DEED TO SUBJECT PREMISES
BY PLAINTIFF TO REAL-PARTY-IN-INTEREST AND PROPERTY OWNER, THERESA ZIEMKOWSKI
In support of the attached Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint for
Unlawful Detainer, the defendant hereby incorporates as Exhibit “A” a copy
of the deed transfer, in which the plaintiff reassigned ownership of the
subject premises to Theresa Ziemkowski, thereby relinquishing ownership of
the property the defendant leases.
As is more fully shown in the attached memorandum of points and
authorities, case law and state statute establish that only the owner of
the property being leased can bring an unlawful detainer action.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE
Hearing: April 9th, 2012 9:15 a.m. Department: 10 Judge: Hon. Kenneth Barnum
Trial Date: April 9th, 2012 9:15 a.m.
SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
PLAINTIFF FAILS TO ALLEGE LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE [CCP §430.10(b)]
to state the true capacity of the landlord is subject to motion
to strike under Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(b), (f). In this case, the
plaintiff failed to attach the requisite documents establishing
ownership of the subject property to the complaint because, in
fact, Theresa Ziemkowski is the legal owner of the premises at
issue, and not the plaintiff [see Exhibit “A”].
II. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO ALLEGE A BASIS FOR RECOVERY OF UNPAID RENT
A. Code of Civil Procedure § 1174 allows damages to a successful
plaintiff only when they are “occasioned” by an unlawful detainer
[see Roberts v. Redlich (1952) 111 CA2d 566, 569, 244 P2d 933]. To
avail itself of the summary proceedings, the landlord must state
a complaint squarely within the terms of the statute and pray
only for such damages as are allowed under it [Markham v. Fralick
an unlawful detainer complaint must be based on allegations of
service of the statutorily required 3-day notice pay rent or quit
[Code Civ. Proc. § 1161(2); Baugh v. Consumers Assocs. (1966) 241
CA2d 672, 675, 50 CR 822].
B. No rent at all can be recovered in an unlawful detainer action
unless both the notice to quit and the complaint are based on a
default in the payment of rent [Code Civ. Proc. § 1174(b); Harris v.
Bissell (1921) 54 CSA 307, 313, 202 P 453]. A tenant is not guilty
of unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent unless a 3-day notice,
stating the precise amount of rent, has been properly served [Code
Civ. Proc. § 1161(1)]. An unlawful detainer complaint praying for
rent dfoes not state a cause of action unless service of a 3day
notice is alleged [Samuels v. Singer (1934) 1 CA2ds 545, 549, 36
P2d 1098]. Therefore, when only a 30-day notice is alleged, no rent
at all can ber recovered [Castle Park No. 5 v. Katherine (1979) 91
CA3d Supp 6, 11, 154 CR 498; Glouberman v. Coffery (1955) 138 CA2d
Supp 906, 292 P2d 681].
C. In the present complaint, the plaintiff has not prayed for any
specific amount of past due rent, but for damages in the amount
of $600. In spite of this, on April 4th, 2012, in the trial, the
court presumed that the amount of past due rent is $600, even
though the monthly rent is $400, and therefore damages can only
be in multiples of $400. Regardless, of its error in determining
the correct amount of back rent due, there is no allegation of
service of a 3-day notice. Because the complaint is based only on
a defective 14-day notice, no rent can be awarded in this action.
The demand for rent should be stricken.
III. AUTHORITY FOR MOTION TO STRIKE IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTIONS
A. A party may move to strike the whole or a part of any pleading
[Code Civ. Proc. § 435(b)(1)]. A motion to strike may be used to
attack defects not apparent on the face of a pleading [White
Lighting Co. v. Wolfson (1968) 68 C2d 336, 353, 66 CT 697]. A motion
to strike is authorized in an unlawful detainer action [Saberi v.
Bakhtiari (1985) 169 CA3d 509, 517, 215 CR 359].
B. The court may strike from any pleading any irrelevant, false,
or improper matter [Code Civ. Proc. § 436(a)]. The court may also
strike all or any part of a pleading that is “not drawn or filed
in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an
order of the court” [Code Civ. Proc. § 436(b)]. The complaint
shall contain a statement of the facts constituting the cause
of action in ordinary and concise language and a demand for
judgment, stating the amount of damamges demanded [Code Civ. Proc.
§ 425.10(a)].
Документы, похожие на «Defendant's Motion to Strike Complaint for Unlawful Detainer»
Case 016 Villanueva v Ople
PAC v Revilla
Oblicon-Case-Digests