TURNIPSEED vs GARDNER

26CV193753: TURNIPSEED vs GARDNER 08/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint; filed by Jonathan Gardner (Defendant) CRS# 648015542593 in Department 511

Tentative Ruling - 07/31/2026 Lupe Garcia

The Demurrer filed by Jonathan Gardner on 07/27/2026 is Overruled.

NOTICE: All attorneys and unrepresented parties who contest the tentative ruling and request an opportunity to present their arguments at the hearing must notify all other parties of their intention to appear by telephone or in person no later than the day before the hearing, by 4:00 p.m. PT. Parties and attorneys must also formally indicate their objection on eCourt and by sending an email message to the Department 511 clerk at Dept511@alameda.courts.ca.gov. The parties and attorneys must clearly indicate in their email messages the name of the case and the case number. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the Court if the Court has not directed oral argument by its tentative ruling and notice of a party’s intent to appear is not received by the deadline. See California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1) and Alameda County Superior Court Local Rule 3.30(d).

The demurrer of Defendant Jonathan Gardner to the Complaint for unlawful detainer of Plaintiff Lula Turnipseed, pursuant to CCP §§ 430.10(e) and 1170(b)(1), is OVERRULED.

Plaintiff Turnipseed filed her Complaint against Defendant Gardner for unlawful detainer on June 16, 2026. The address of the property is 8354 Ney Avenue, in Oakland. Plaintiff attached her Sixty-Day Notice of Termination of License/Use to the Complaint pursuant to CCP § 1166(d)(1)(A). Plaintiff’s Sixty-Day Notice advised Defendant that he had until March 31, 2026 to vacate the premises. The Court is authorized to consider the content of the Three-Day Notice and proof of service because Plaintiff attached them to their Complaint. See Moran v. Prime Healthcare Mgmt., Inc. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1131, 1145-1146.

Defendant’s demurrer is overruled because she did not file it timely. Defendant was required to file the demurrer within 10 days of being served with the summons. See CCP §§ 1167.3 and 1170(a). In this case, Plaintiff’s service of the summons on Defendant by posting and mail, pursuant to CCP § 415.45(b), was not effective until the tenth day after her registered process server posted the summons at the property and mailed a copy to Defendant on June 29, 2026. The tenth day after June 29, 2026 was July 9, 2026. Defendant therefore had until July 20, 2026 to file and serve the demurrer. The demurrer was not filed until July 27, 2026.

The Court will prepare the order. The court clerk will deliver a copy of the order to the parties. Plaintiff shall file and serve the notice of entry of order no later than August 7, 2026. Defendant shall file and serve his Answer within five days after Plaintiff’s service of the notice of entry of order. If Plaintiff elects to serve the notice of entry of order by electronic mail, express mail, or regular mail, Defendant’s deadline to comply shall be extended. See CCP §§ 1010.6(a)(3)(B), 1013(a) and 1013(c). 26CV193753: TURNIPSEED vs GARDNER 08/03/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint; filed by Jonathan Gardner (Defendant) CRS# 648015542593 in Department 511