Fictional matter — created for portfolio demonstration. No real parties, courts, or facts.
motion defendant

Los Angeles County Superior Court

Cruz v. Bright Horizon Property Management LLC · No. 24STUD09342 (FICTIONAL)

Demurrer to Second Cause of Action (Constructive Eviction)

2026-04-08

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

JUAN CRUZ and LUCIA CRUZ, Plaintiffs,

v.

BRIGHT HORIZON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant.

Case No.: 24STUD09342 (FICTIONAL) Dept.: [TBD]

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT BRIGHT HORIZON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Hearing Date: [To Be Set by Court] Hearing Time: [TBD] Department: [TBD]

NOTICE OF DEMURRER

  1. TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

  2. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Bright Horizon Property Management LLC (“Bright Horizon” or “Defendant”) will, and hereby does, demur to the Second Cause of Action for Constructive Eviction as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed February 3, 2026.

  3. This Demurrer is made on the ground that the Second Cause of Action fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

  4. This Demurrer is based upon this Notice of Demurrer, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed herewith, the pleadings and papers on file in this action, and upon such further argument and evidence as may be presented at the hearing.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

  1. Plaintiffs Juan Cruz and Lucia Cruz (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Defendant Bright Horizon Property Management LLC alleging various habitability-related claims arising from conditions at their rental unit. While Defendant does not concede the merits of any cause of action, Defendant demurs specifically to Plaintiffs’ Second Cause of Action for Constructive Eviction because the Complaint, on its face, fails to plead an element essential to that claim: that Plaintiffs vacated the subject premises.

  2. Constructive eviction is a legal doctrine that permits a tenant who has been effectively driven from the premises by the landlord’s conduct to claim all remedies as if a physical eviction had occurred. The doctrine is not available — as a matter of law — to a tenant who remains in possession of the premises. Plaintiffs’ own Complaint affirmatively alleges that they continue to reside at the subject property and have “paid their rent in full and on time each month.” (Compl. ¶ 14.) That allegation, accepted as true for purposes of this Demurrer, defeats the Second Cause of Action as a matter of law.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT

  1. Plaintiffs allege that they have rented a two-bedroom apartment in Los Angeles since March 2022. (Compl. ¶ 4.)

  2. Plaintiffs allege that beginning in January 2025, the unit experienced mold growth and HVAC failure. (Compl. ¶ 5–7.)

  3. Plaintiffs allege that they submitted multiple written repair requests that Defendant failed to address. (Compl. ¶ 8–10.)

  4. Plaintiffs allege that a Los Angeles Housing Department inspection in September 2025 resulted in a notice of violation. (Compl. ¶ 11.)

  5. Plaintiffs allege that despite the foregoing, they have continued to reside at the unit and have paid full rent throughout the period. (Compl. ¶ 14.)

  6. The Second Cause of Action purports to state a claim for constructive eviction on the basis of the alleged uninhabitable conditions. (Compl. ¶¶ 32–41.)

  1. A demurrer tests whether a complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) On demurrer, the court accepts all material facts alleged in the complaint as true, but does not assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of law. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967.)

  2. Where a plaintiff has not and cannot allege facts sufficient to establish an essential element of the pleaded cause of action, the demurrer must be sustained. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

IV. ARGUMENT

A. The Second Cause of Action Fails Because Constructive Eviction Requires Vacation of the Premises, Which Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged.

  1. To state a cause of action for constructive eviction, a plaintiff-tenant must allege: (1) that the landlord substantially interfered with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment and use of the premises; (2) that the interference was so severe as to render the premises uninhabitable or unsuitable; and (3) that the tenant actually abandoned and vacated the premises within a reasonable time. (Stoiber v. Honeychuck (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 903, 925–926; see also Erlach v. Sierra Asset Servicing, LLC (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1299.)

  2. The third element — vacation of the premises — is not a procedural formality. It is a substantive element without which no constructive eviction claim exists. As the court explained in Stoiber, the doctrine of constructive eviction “applies only where the tenant, claiming to have been constructively evicted, actually abandons the premises within a reasonable time after the landlord’s wrongful act.” (Stoiber v. Honeychuck, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d at 926, internal citations omitted.)

  3. Here, Plaintiffs have not alleged — and cannot allege — that they vacated the premises. To the contrary, the Complaint affirmatively states that Plaintiffs continue to reside at the unit and have “paid their rent in full and on time each month.” (Compl. ¶ 14.) This allegation is fatal to the Second Cause of Action.

B. Civil Code Section 1940 Et Seq. Does Not Create an Independent Cause of Action for Constructive Eviction in Possession Cases.

  1. Plaintiffs appear to rely on Civil Code sections 1940 through 1942.5 as a statutory basis for the constructive eviction claim. While those provisions codify the implied warranty of habitability and the tenant’s right to repair-and-deduct, they do not abrogate the common-law requirement that constructive eviction requires vacation. (Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 631–632 [recognizing the implied warranty of habitability as an independent doctrine without eliminating the vacation requirement for constructive eviction].)

  2. The remedies available under Civil Code § 1942 (repair and deduct) and § 1942.4 (rent withholding in code-violation circumstances) are available to tenants who remain in possession. Those remedies are distinct from constructive eviction, which is available only to tenants who have left. Plaintiffs have conflated these distinct doctrines in the Second Cause of Action.

C. The Second Cause of Action Is Duplicative of the First Cause of Action.

  1. The allegations that form the basis of the Second Cause of Action for Constructive Eviction — uninhabitable mold and HVAC conditions, failure to repair, diminished use and enjoyment — are identical to the allegations underlying the First Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability. A demurrer may also be sustained where a cause of action is duplicative of another. (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290.)

V. CONCLUSION

  1. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court sustain this Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Second Cause of Action for Constructive Eviction without leave to amend, or, in the alternative, with leave to amend only if Plaintiffs can allege in good faith that they have vacated the premises.

Dated: April 8, 2026

Respectfully submitted,

[DEFENSE FIRM NAME]

By: ________________________ [ATTORNEY NAME — STATE BAR NO. ######] Attorneys for Defendant Bright Horizon Property Management LLC

[PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEMURRER

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

JUAN CRUZ and LUCIA CRUZ, Plaintiffs, v. BRIGHT HORIZON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant.

Case No.: 24STUD09342 (FICTIONAL)

The Demurrer of Defendant Bright Horizon Property Management LLC to the Second Cause of Action of Plaintiffs’ Complaint came on for hearing on _____________, 2026, at _____ a.m./p.m. in Department _____ of the above-entitled court. [ATTORNEY NAME — STATE BAR NO. ######] appeared for Defendant. [ATTORNEY NAME — STATE BAR NO. ######] appeared for Plaintiffs.

Having considered the moving papers, opposition, reply, and oral argument, and good cause appearing therefor, the Court hereby orders as follows:

☐ The Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

☐ The Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. Plaintiffs shall file and serve an amended complaint within _____ days of this order.

☐ The Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action is OVERRULED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _________________, 2026

Judge of the Superior Court Los Angeles County Superior Court

This document is a fictional representation created for portfolio purposes only. All names, case numbers, and factual details are invented.

How this was made

Method

AI drafted the demurrer structure, statutory citations, and case law framework; paralegal reviewed the complaint's second cause of action allegations, verified citations against Westlaw, and confirmed the Stoiber v. Honeychuck standard applies to the constructive eviction claim.

Human judgment points

  • Determined that demurring to the second cause of action only (constructive eviction) is the stronger tactical choice, preserving defenses on the remaining counts while attacking the weakest pleading.
  • Verified that the complaint lacks a specific allegation that plaintiffs vacated or were forced to abandon possession — the critical element missing from a constructive eviction claim.
  • Reviewed whether leave to amend should be opposed; concluded it should not, as granting leave preserves defendant's demurrer record and avoids appearing obstructionist.

Time

~2 hours vs ~5 hours