Hsieh v. Pederson
232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 701
| Cal. Super. Ct. | 2018Background
- Landlord Andy Hsieh served defendants Aaron Barrios and Jacqueline Mor with a 14‑day pay‑or‑quit notice on April 22, 2017; the notice identified Hsieh and gave an address, phone, and weekday hours for in‑person payment.
- Hsieh filed an unlawful detainer complaint on May 10, 2017, seeking possession and restitution; the complaint attached the 14‑day notice.
- Defendants answered and moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the complaint was premature because the 14‑day period had not expired and the notice’s weekday payment hours meant weekends were excluded, making the last day May 11, 2017.
- The trial court granted the motion, concluding the notice effectively required in‑person payment limited to Monday–Friday and that the complaint was filed before the 14‑day period ran.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed de novo, treated the notice as part of the complaint, and considered whether the notice permitted payment by mail (affecting the computation of the 14‑day period) and whether the complaint was thus premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the notice lawfully permitted payment by mail as well as in person | Hsieh: notice included address and did not require in‑person payment; mailing remained an option | Defendants: weekday hours language meant payment was only possible Mon–Fri so filing was premature | Held: Notice allowed either mail or personal delivery; weekday hours did not negate mailing option |
| Whether weekends are excluded such that the 14‑day period had not expired when complaint filed | Hsieh: count all calendar days; 14th day was May 6, so filing on May 10 was timely | Defendants: practical payment window ended on Thursday May 11, making May 10 premature | Held: Using alleged service date (Apr 22), the 14th day was May 6; complaint filed after full period expired |
| Whether a complaint filed before expiration of the notice period is premature and subject to dismissal | Hsieh: complaint was filed after full notice expired | Defendants: complaint filed before tenant had meaningful opportunity to pay | Held: Complaint cannot be filed until notice period expires; here it was not premature because period had expired before filing |
| Whether judgment on the pleadings was appropriate given notice and complaint | Hsieh: properly pleaded facts and incorporated notice show no defect; judgment on pleadings was error | Defendants: notice defective so complaint failed to state cause | Held: Court of Appeal reversed judgment for defendants and remanded; judgment reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Harris v. Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc., 59 Cal.4th 772 (de novo review of judgment on the pleadings and pleadings treated as true)
- Smiley v. Citibank, 11 Cal.4th 138 (interpretation of contract/notice language and payment methods)
- Cohen v. Ratinoff, 147 Cal.App.3d 321 (document/notice attached to complaint is part of pleading for review)
- Blaich v. West Hollywood Rent Stabilization Dept., 195 Cal.App.4th 1171 (statutory interpretation questions reviewed de novo)
- Downing v. Cutting Packing Co., 183 Cal. 91 (cause of action for unlawful detainer arises only after notice period expires)
- Nicolaysen v. Pacific Home, 65 Cal.App.2d 769 (tenancy terminates only upon expiration of notice period)
- Schabarum v. California Legislature, 60 Cal.App.4th 1205 (appellate review does not defer to trial court’s analysis)
Disposition: Judgment reversed; plaintiff to recover costs on appeal.