Jane Doe v. Wanderlust Trust et al.

After viewing the property and confirming that NorCal Property had not received any applications, Plaintiff immediately submitted an application with her current credit report, proof of income, bank statements, social security number, driver’s license photo, Section 8 housing voucher, and references. (Id. at ¶¶ 61-64, 67.) On April 4, 2023, NorCal Property mistakenly contacted Plaintiff about an open house for the same property, and Plaintiff attended the showing in disguise. (Id. at ¶ 74.) At the showing, Plaintiff heard that no applications had been submitted, and on April 6, 2023, learned that the property had been rented to another applicant after the April 4th showing. (Id at ¶¶ 75-76.)

Plaintiff alleges that the property manager refused to rent the property to her because of her disability and status as a Section 8 recipient. (Id. at ¶ 80.) On September 29, 2025, the Trustee filed the instant demurrer. Plaintiff filed a timely opposition, and the Trustee filed a timely reply. Demurrer to the FAC The Trustee demurs to the entire FAC on the ground that Plaintiff improperly named the Trust as a defendant, and accordingly, the FAC fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against the Trust.

The Trustee also demurs to the first through third causes of action on the grounds that the claims fail to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and are uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.10, subds. (e)-(f).) Finally, the Trustee demurs to the claim for interest on the ground that no claim would qualify for interest. Legal Standards A demurrer may be utilized by “[t]he party against whom complaint has been filed” to object to the legal sufficiency of the pleading as whole, or to any “cause of action” stated therein, on one or more of the grounds enumerated by statute. (Code Civ.

Proc., §§ 430.10, 430.50, subd. (a).) These grounds include that “[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to

constitute a cause of action” or “[t]he pleading is uncertain.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e)-(f).) In ruling on a demurrer, the court treats the motion “as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Piccinini v. Cal. Emergency Management Agency (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 685, 688 [citing Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318].) “The reviewing court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded.

The court does not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” (Gregory v. Albertson’s, Inc. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 845, 850.) However, it has long be held that on demurrer, leave to amend should be granted where “‘there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.’” (Loeffler v. Target Corp. (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1081, 1100; see also A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 687.) In California, self-represented litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys and must comply with the California Rules of Court and Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Kobayashi v.

Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543 [“Pro per litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys. [Citation.]”].) Preliminary Issues Plaintiff asserts that the demurrer is moot because it addresses only the three causes of action referred in the original April 4, 2025 complaint, not the six causes of action alleged in the May 16, 2025 FAC. The argument is unpersuasive. While the FAC’s caption does list six causes of action, the body of the FAC itself only alleges three. In any event, a defendant may properly demur to the pleading as a whole or any cause of action stated therein. (Code Civ.

Proc., 430.50, subd. (a).) Plaintiff also asserts that a default should be entered against Defendants for failing to respond to the amended complaint within 30 days of the May 29, 2025 service date (i.e. June 28, 2025.) To the extent Plaintiff complains that Defendants have not filed an answer to the FAC, the argument is lacks merit as a demurrer constitutes an adequate response to the FAC. Moreover, the delay in filing the demurrer is partly due to the Trustee’s request for an automatic 30-day extension and the parties’ meet and confer efforts.

Furthermore, the Court has discretion to hear an untimely demurrer “so long as its action does ‘not affect the substantial rights of the parties.’ [Citations.]” (See McAllister v. County of Monterey (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 253, 282; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).)

Discussion

The Trust is an Improperly Named Defendant The Trustee is correct in demurring to the FAC on the ground that a “trust itself cannot sue or be sued.” (Portico Management Group, LLC v. Harrison (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 464, 473 [quoting Presta v. Tepper (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 909, 914].) While Plaintiff properly names the Trustee as a defendant, this does not mean that Plaintiff may also name the Trust as a defendant. (See Estate of Bowles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 684, 691 [“As a general rule, the trustee is the real party in interest with standing to sue and defend on the trust’s behalf.”]) The Court therefore SUSTAINS the demurrer with 20 days’ leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

Failure to State Sufficient Facts as to the Trustee In demurring to the first, second, and third causes of action of the FAC, the Trustee asserts that the FAC fails to plead any facts or allegations against the Trustee. The argument is persuasive. The FAC is replete with allegations against “Defendant(s) Property Management Company” and “Defendant’s Property Manager” but does not explain the relationship between the Trustee, Property Management Company and Property Manager. The FAC only refers to the Trustee in stating the causes of action. (See e.g., FAC, p. 16:20-21.)

The factual allegations do not shed light on how the Trustee is related to the Property Management Company or Property Manager, nor how the Trustee is responsible for their actions. The Trustee also claims that the first cause of action for discrimination under the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”)1 is subject to demurrer because the Rehabilitation Act does not apply to an individual but programs or federal agencies receiving financial assistance. The argument is well-taken as Congress limited the application of Section 504 to “those who actually ‘receive’ federal financial assistance”. (United States Dept. of Transportation v.

Paralyzed Veterans of America (1986) 477 U.S. 597, 605.) The FAC does not allege that the Trustee is a program or federal agency receiving financial assistance. The Court also finds persuasive that the demurrer to the third cause of action for discrimination under FEHA is sustainable because the FAC fails to allege exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Gupta v. Stanford University (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 407, 411 [“failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a proper basis for demurrer.”]) While Plaintiff claims there is an exception due to an “unreasonable delay by the administrative agency” (Opposition, p. 11:16-18), Plaintiff does not provide the legal authority to support the argument. (See Public Employment Relations Bd. v.

Bellflower Unified School Dist. (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 927, 939 [“The absence of...citation to authority allows this court to treat the contention as waived.”]) The Court therefore SUSTAINS the demurrer with 20 days’ leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Demand for Prejudgment Interest The Trustee’s demurrer to the FAC’s demand for prejudgment interest is without merit. A demurrer is not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge allegations concerning damages or remedies. (See Kong v.

City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1047 [“[A] demurrer cannot rightfully be sustained to part of a cause of action or to a particular type of damage or remedy.”]) The Court therefore OVERRULES the demurrer to the FAC’s demand for prejudgment interest. Uncertainty While the Trustee’s Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint identifies uncertainty as a basis for the demurrer, the memorandum of points and authorities do not substantively address this ground.

The argument is therefore waived. (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 836, 852 [“When [a party] fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to

1 Section 504 states, in relevant part: “No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 7(20) [29 USCS § 705(20)], shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.” (29 U.S.C. 794, subd. (a).)

authority, we treat the point as waived.”]) The Court OVERRULES the demurrer to the first through third causes of action on the ground of uncertainty.

Disposition

The Trustee’s demurrer to the FAC on the ground that Plaintiff improperly names the Trust as a defendant is SUSTAINED with 10 days’ leave to amend. The Trustee’s demurrer to the first through third causes of action on the ground of failure to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action is SUSTAINED with 10 days’ leave to amend. The Trustee’s demurrer to the demand for prejudgment interest on the ground of failure to state sufficient facts is OVERRULED. The Trustee’s demurrer to the first through third causes of action on the ground of uncertainty is OVERRULED. The Court will prepare the Order.

- oo0oo -