Defendant Jordan Kidushim's Demurrer to Unlawful Detainer Complaint
DEPARTMENT 3 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT KEITH KING, TRUSTEE OF THE CHARLES & JOAN KING LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT, Plaintiff(s), vs. JORDAN KIDUSHIM, Defendant(s).))))))))))))) CASE NO.: 26NNCV02659 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT JORDAN KIDUSHIM?S DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT FOR JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE 3-DAY NOTICE TO PAY OR QUIT Dept. 3 8:30 a.m.
May 18, 2026)
I. INTRODUCTION
On April 9, 2026, plaintiff Keith King (“Plaintiff”), trustee of the Charles & Joan King Living Trust Agreement, filed this unlawful detainer action against defendant Jordan Kidushim (“Defendant”).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was served with a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit (“Notice”) and a 3-day notice to perform covenants or quit.
On May 8, 2026, Defendant filed this demurrer on the grounds that Plaintiff’s Notice was defective.
II. DISCUSSION
“Strict compliance with the statutory notice requirements is a prerequisite to filing an unlawful detainer action.” (DHI Cherry Glen Associates, L.P. v. Gutierrez (2019) 46 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 9.)
“The purpose of the statutory requirement of notice is to give the tenant, or the subtenant in actual possession, the opportunity to pay the rent and thereby retain possession.” (Fifth & Broadway Partnership, supra, 102 Cal.App.3d 195, 202.)
Defendant demurs to the Complaint on the grounds that the written lease provides that the only contractually agreed upon manner of paying rent is by “wire/electronic payment’ to Plaintiff, payable to “The Charles and Joan King Living Trust.” (Demurrer, p. 7, Comp., Ex. 1.)
Defendant states that Plaintiff “unilaterally barred Defendant from further utilizing the contractually agreed wire’ payment procedure’ and then “returned all timely payments that had previously been accepted’ without providing any other means of payment.
Defendant argues that the Notice is defective because it omits banking information, such as the routing number or the number of an account, and orders “personal delivery’ to an unidentified person at “Wells Fargo Bank, Attn: Keith King’ during banking hours. (Compl., Ex. 2.)
Defendant additionally notes that “Keith King’ is not the landlord payee according to the Lease, and that the Notice does not identify how the money should be paid, i.e., cash, check, money order, or cashier’s check. (Demurrer, pp. 8-9.)
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?”
Defendant emphasizes that the lease only provides for “wire/electronic payment’ and that the Notice’s missing information makes it impossible for him to comply with it.
While the lease between Plaintiff and Defendant only allows for payment of rent by wire/electronic payment, Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2) provides for alternative ways to pay rent after a default, one of which is to provide the number of an account in a financial institution into which the rental payment may be made, and the name and street address of the institution (provided that the institution is located within five miles of the rental property).
Here, the Notice provides that information by identifying the name and address of the financial institution, Wells Fargo Bank, as well as the account number.
Accordingly, the demurrer is OVERRULED.
III. CONCLUSION
Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.
Defendant is to file an answer within 5 calendar days.
Dated this 18th day of May 2026 William A. Crowfoot Judge of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.
Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.
If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.
Home -->)" -->