Facts

Sperling LAC-VV LLC (Sperling) received a quitclaim deed from Philip and Sharol Sperling and Philip Sperling for Trust to three properties in Valley Village, CA. Sperling later rented the three parcels to Philip and Sharol Sperling and Philip Sperling for Trust, who in turn rented to Raymond T. Cerulli and Sandra Cerulli dba Pat's Cocktail Lounge (Tenants). The Tenants agreed to a 30-year fixed term tenancy through April 30, 2029. Sperling later sued the Tenants and AJ Concepts LLC for Unlawful Detainer after the Tenants refused Sperling's notices to increase rent and security deposit.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that Tenants agreed to potential rent increases and potential security deposit increases when they entered the lease agreement with plaintiff. Plaintiff also contended that defendants received notice valid under the agreement to inform defendants about the impending rent increase. Plaintiff also contended that defendants were given notice of the increase to the security deposit but failed to adhere to the higher rent and deposit amounts. Plaintiff also contended that defendants remained on the premises without paying the additional rent and security deposit requested by plaintiff, which violated the lease agreement and applicable law.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants contended that plaintiff failed to identify any portion of the lease that supports plaintiff's desired price hikes. Defendants also contended that the amounts requested by plaintiff were uncertain because plaintiff provided two notices in different amounts at the same time. Defendants also contended plaintiff failed to provide a method used to calculate them. Defendants also contended that any amount sought by plaintiff was mathematically impossible using the Cost of Living adjustments provided under the terms of the lease agreement. Defendants also contended the notices were not properly served because plaintiff did not serve AJ Concepts LLC.

Result

The court sustained defendants' demurrer without leave to amend because it found plaintiff failed to meet the statutory requirements to support the claim against defendants.