Defendant’s Demurrer
party, and one for the Court. If the parties upload any evidence to the evidence portal, or intend to present any video evidence, they must have a device available to present such evidence in the courtroom on the day of trial.
The Court Clerk is to provide notice. 2 30-2026-01579731 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Demurrer (ROA 7), the United Commercial Complaint (ROA 2) and the Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 11). Holdings LLC vs. Manry The Court OVERRULES the Demurrer.
The Defendant is ordered to file an Answer within 5 business days.
Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s ruling. 3 30-2026-01581835 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Demurrer (ROA 11), Palma vs. Umana Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 20) and the Complaint (ROA 1).
The Court SUSTAINS the Demurrer with leave to amend. The Complaint fails to answer #7, whether the tenancy is subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. Additionally, the Plaintiff checked box 8a that the tenancy was terminated for at-fault just cause, but it is a 60-day notice to terminate and fails to state “just cause” in the notice to terminate.
Plaintiff has leave to amend the complaint within 5 business days.
The Court Clerk will provide notice. 4 30-2026-01583021 The Court has read and considered the Defendants’ Demurrer (ROA 13) and Sunset Ridge the Complaint (ROA 2). Investment LP vs. Martinez The Court OVERRULES the Demurrer.
The Defendants are ordered to file an Answer within 5 business days.
The Plaintiff is to provide notice of the Court’s ruling. 5 30-2026-01581433 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Demurrer (ROA 8), the Wilbur vs. Jaimes Complaint (ROA 1) and Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 13).
The Court OVERRULES the Demurrer. Although the Plaintiff has many superfluous complaints about how the Defendant conducts herself on the property, the Complaint, on its face, states sufficient grounds for an unlawful detainer action based on a 60-day notice to terminate.
The Defendant is ordered to file an Answer within 5 business days.
The Court sets August 17, 2026, at 8:30 AM in Department C61 for Court Trial.
Witnesses are required to testify in person unless the court finds good cause to allow remote testimony. The party seeking remote testimony of a witness must file the request and service notice to all parties and the Court at least 5 days prior to the trial date.
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?”
The Court Clerk is to provide notice. 6 30-2026-01567697 The Court has read and considered the Defendants’ Motion for Order to Stay Kelly vs. Solomonian Proceedings; Notice of Defendants’ Motion to Consolidate Cases (ROA 71), Declaration of Patrick Solomonian In Support of Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment (ROA 111).
The Court takes Judicial Notice of the existence of 30-2026-01552597-CU- PO-WJC, Notice of Appeal-Limited Civil-Appeals (ROA 82), Notice of Related Case (ROA 103), Notice of Default on Appeal – Appeals (ROA 89), 7/22/2026 Minute Order (ROA 91), 6/23/2026 Minute Order (ROA 43), Amended Notice of Ruling (ROA 47), Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (ROA 52), Request for Entry of Default (ROA 65), and 7/10/2026 Minute Order (ROA 60).
Defendants move to stay this unlawful detainer action based on the pendency of Orange County Superior Court case No. 30-2026-01552597-CU-PO-WJC, in which they allege that Plaintiff wrongfully caused the death of Plaintiff's and Defendants' mother. Defendants contend that, if successful in that action, issues concerning title to the subject property may arise.
Defendants also argue that a stay is warranted because Plaintiff failed to file a Notice of Related Case pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.300. The Court is not persuaded. Rule 3.300 imposes an obligation on all parties to notify the Court of related actions; it does not assign that responsibility exclusively to any one party. The failure of either party to timely file a Notice of Related Case does not, by itself, constitute a basis to stay these proceedings. The Court further notes that Defendants filed a Notice of Related Case (ROA 103) on July 23, 2026.
Finally, Defendants seek a stay based on the filing of a petition for writ of mandate. The record reflects that on July 22, 2026, the Appellate Division of the Orange County Superior Court issued a notice of default in that proceeding. Defendants have identified no order from the Appellate Division staying the proceedings in this action.
The motion is DENIED. Unlawful detainer actions are summary proceedings that are statutorily entitled to precedence over other civil matters and are intended to be resolved expeditiously. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1179a.) Defendants have not demonstrated any legal or factual basis warranting a stay of these proceedings. 8 30-2026-01574029 The Court has read and considered the Plaintiff’s Motion For Order Wolverton vs. Boyer Establishing Admission for Defendants Alan Boyer and Franiaz Mostafavi to Requests for Admission (Set One) and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel