Demurrer to the Complaint
26CV172956: KELLUM vs PROPERTY RADAR, INC. 07/23/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to the Complaint; filed by Property Radar, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 686346650635 in Department 518
Tentative Ruling - 07/21/2026 Mark Fickes
The Demurrer filed by Property Radar, Inc. on 04/15/2026 is Sustained without Leave to Amend.
Background
On March 2, 2026, Plaintiff Charles Kellum filed a complaint against Defendants Property Radar, Inc., Sean OToole, and Mark Hockridge regarding an alleged wrongful foreclosure of his family home.
On April 15, 2026, Defendants Property Radar, Inc., Sean OToole, and Mark Hockridge filed a demurrer.
Plaintiff failed to file an opposition.
Legal Standard
A party may demur to a complaint if it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of 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 Property Radar, Inc., Sean OToole, and Mark Hockridge demurrers to Plaintiffs complaint on the basis it does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for several reasons including: (1) Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this lawsuit as he is not the legal owner of the property; (2) the Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action against Defendants, as Defendants owed Plaintiff no duty per Civil Code § 2924g
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?”
Plaintiff failed to oppose the demurrer. By failing to oppose the demurrer, Plaintiffs created an inference that the demurrer is meritorious. (SeeHerzberg v. County of Plumas(2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1,20 [Plaintiffs did not oppose the County's demurrer to this portion of their seventh cause of action Accordingly, we deem plaintiffs to have abandoned the issue.]; see also,Sexton v. Superior Court(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 [noting that The failure to file opposition creates an inference that the motion or demurrer is meritorious.].)
Thus, the Court deems the complaint abandoned regarding Defendants. 26CV172956: KELLUM vs PROPERTY RADAR, INC. 07/23/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to the Complaint; filed by Property Radar, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 686346650635 in Department 518 Orders
The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer, without leave to amend, and dismisses Defendants Property Radar, Inc., Sean OToole, and Mark Hockridge from this action.
Since no defendants remain, the Court dismisses this action per CCP § 581.
---
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 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
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
26CV172956: KELLUM vs PROPERTY RADAR, INC. 07/23/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to the Complaint; filed by Property Radar, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 686346650635 in Department 518 +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)
---
Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)