Defendants’ Demurrer to the Complaint
Court must assume that the statements contained within the Complaint are true in determining facial sufficiency. As such, the Court OVERRULES the Defendant’s demurrer. Based on only the information contained within the complaint and its attachments, there is sufficient basis to state a cause of action for an unlawful detainer. The issues raised by the Defendant in the Demurrer regarding the payments of rent and the possible overstatement of rent in the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit are factual determinations that will be addressed at trial.
The Defendant is ordered to file an Answer within 5 business days.
The Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling. 8 30-2026-01576285 The Court has read and considered the Defendants’ Demurrer to the UDR Eight80 I L.P. Complaint (ROA 30) and the Complaint (ROA 2). vs. Helisen When a party files a demurrer, the Court looks at the facial sufficiency of the complaint and attachments only and cannot consider extrinsic evidence. The Court must assume that the statements contained within the Complaint are true in determining facial sufficiency. As such, the Court OVERRULES the Defendants’ demurrer.
Based on only the information contained within the complaint and its attachments, there is sufficient basis to state a cause of action for an unlawful detainer. The issues raised by the Defendants in the Demurrer regarding the payments of rent and the possible overstatement of rent in the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit are factual determinations that will be addressed at trial.
The Defendants are ordered to file an Answer within 2 business days.
The Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling. 10 30-2026-01567687 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Compel The Salvation Army Further Discovery Responses and Motion to Continue Trial (ROA 43, 45, 51, Anaheim Center of and 57), Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 66) and Defendant’s Reply to Hope Apartments, L.P. Opposition (ROA 76). vs. Shoemake In the June 8, 2026, Minute Order, the Court originally set this matter for a jury trial on June 29, 2026, with a pretrial conference on 6/26/2026. (ROA 27.)
The Clerk sent notice to the parties of the trial setting. (ROA 28.) In the June 12, 2026, Minute Order, the pretrial conference date was changed to 7/1/2026 and the jury trial date to 7/13/2026. (ROA 33.) No notice was sent to the parties regarding the date change. On June 26, 2026, Temporary Judge Johanson heard about the pretrial conference in which the Plaintiff requested a continuance of the pretrial conference and jury trial, which the court granted, and the pretrial conference was set for 7/10/2026 and the jury trial for 7/13/2026; the Defendant’s counsel was not present for the hearing (ROA 34).
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?”
Per the Declaration of Defense Counsel, he requested a meet-and-confer regarding the discovery issues on June 19, 2026, which was well within the discovery period. Defense counsel states the Plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond to this email; therefore, on June 30, 2026, Defense Counsel emailed a letter detailing the issues with discovery, requesting a meeting with Plaintiff’s