6221 HOLLIS LLC v. TELLER, et al.

26CV172224: 6221 HOLLIS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs TELLER, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by Pamela Teller (Defendant) + CRS# 839197900673 in Department 518

Tentative Ruling - 06/11/2026 Mark Fickes

The Demurrer filed by Danielle Teller, Pamela Teller, Luke Teller on 04/07/2026 is Sustained with Leave to Amend.

Note: In the event a party contests the tentative ruling, the Court will not be able to hear oral argument on June 16, 2026. If contested, the hearing is continued to June 23, 2026, at 2:30 pm in Department 518.

Background

On April 22, 2026, Plaintiff 6221 Hollis LLC filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Pamela Teller, Danielle Teller, and Luke Teller alleging one cause of action for breach of contract related to the premises located at 1420 62nd Street, Emeryville, California 94608 (“Subject Premises”) for failure to pay rent. The original complaint in this action was filed on February 25, 2026.

On April 29, 2026, Defendants filed a demurrer claiming that Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because Plaintiff is not a party to the lease agreement and that Plaintiff fails to plead its own performance under the lease in keeping the premises habitable. Alternatively, Defendants ask that this case be stayed since a related unlimited civil action, Bruce Bolinger, et al. v. Wareham Development Corporation, et al. (Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 26CV177462), was filed on March 20, 2026, and is pending.

On May 5, 2026, the hearing for that demurrer occurred in Dept. 511 and the demurrer was overruled by Judge Garcia on procedural grounds as Defendants failed to give Plaintiffs adequate notice of the hearing. (Minute Order, dated 5/05/26.)

Thereafter, the case was reassigned to Judge Fickes in dept. 518 and the demurrer to the FAC was rescheduled to May 26, 2026.

The hearing on the demurrer was reset to May 26, 2026, and notice was sent to the parties by the court. Plaintiff failed to file a timely opposition to the demurrer.

On May 26, 2026, Plaintiff requested the court continue the hearing to have time to review their late opposition, which the court granted.

Legal Standard

A party may demur to a complaint if it “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of 26CV172224: 6221 HOLLIS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs TELLER, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by Pamela Teller (Defendant) + CRS# 839197900673 in Department 518 action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) The court will consider all material facts properly pleaded in the complaint and any matters that may be judicially noticed (§ 430.30(a)), “but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law” (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 634, 638 (quoting Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal. 3d 584, 591)).

Discussion

Defendants claim that Plaintiff fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action because Plaintiff is not a party to the lease agreement and therefore lacks standing to sue and that Plaintiff fails to plead its own performance under the lease in keeping the premises habitable.

Plaintiff asserts that sufficient facts regarding standing are pled but that it can amend to show chain of title, that they are not required to pled habitability specifically on a demurrer as that goes to the merits, and that the allegedly related second complaint Is not an issue because it has not been served on Plaintiff and is not the first filed action.

Standing/Privity

Plaintiff pleads that it is the current owner of the Subject Premises and that Hollis General Partnership is its predecessor in interest. (FAC ¶¶ 1, 4.) However, the FAC is unclear as to when Plaintiff acquired the property, whether the breach occurred before or after the purchase, and whether the cause of action for breach of the lease was transferred to Plaintiff via assignment.

The Court agrees with Defendants the issue of standing must be pled; however, the proper course is to allow Plaintiff to amend the FAC to allege the necessary facts. (See River's Side at Washington Square Homeowners Assn. v. Superior Court (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1209, 1241 [“California allows great liberality in the amendment of pleadings, particularly when the only change is a substitution of parties without alteration of the substantive grounds of the suit We see no reason this same rule would not also allow Plaintiff to amend its complaint to sue as the assignee of its members rather than as the representative of its members.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted.)].)

Thus, Defendants’ demurrer as to standing is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Performance (habitability)

Plaintiff does not specifically plead habitability, but the FAC does state, “Plaintiff and its predecessor provided the Premises under the Lease and stood ready to accept rent as required.” (FAC ¶ 15.)

The Court disagrees that Plaintiff is required to affirmatively plead habitability to bring a breach of contract claim against their tenants, since the breach of habitability is an affirmative defense.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV172224: 6221 HOLLIS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs TELLER, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by Pamela Teller (Defendant) + CRS# 839197900673 in Department 518 (See e.g. Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616, 620 [“ Finally, we have concluded that a landlord's breach of this warranty of habitability may be raised as a defense in an unlawful detainer action. Past California cases have established that a defendant in an unlawful detainer action may raise any affirmative defense which, if established, will preserve the tenant's possession of the premises.”].)

Thus, Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED as to this issue.

Second Pending Action

Although a pending action between the same parties regarding the same issues is a reason to sustain a demurrer under CPP § 430.10(C). Here, Plaintiff has not been served and further this is the first filed action. (See California Union Ins. Co. v. Trinity River Land Co. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 104, 108–109 [“the pendency of another action growing out of the same transaction (here, the insurance contracts and the fire) is a ground for abatement of the second action but never for abatement of the first.”] (internal citation omitted).)

If Plaintiff is served in the second action and the parties and issues are deemed to be the same, that would potentially be a reason to demurrer to the second action as the first filed case takes priority.

Thus, Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED as to this issue.

Defendants further ask the court to award Defendants their costs of suit and, pursuant to the attorneys’ fees provision of the Lease (Article 11), their reasonable attorneys’ fees. However, Defendants have failed to submit a declaration regarding their fees. Further, and more importantly, it seems nonsensical to award Defendants fees under a contract to which Plaintiff is not a party. This issue is not yet ripe.

Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to the standing/privity issue only.

Plaintiff must file and serve a second amended complaint curing the defects on or before July 17, 2026.

--

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV172224: 6221 HOLLIS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs TELLER, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by Pamela Teller (Defendant) + CRS# 839197900673 in Department 518 preceding the noticed hearing.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person.

For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.

Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984

Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984

One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)

---

Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)