IIP-CA 1 LP, A DELAWARE PARTNERSHIP vs HORIZON COLLECTIVE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

Plaintiff further alleges that the agreement was later changed as follows: First Amendment dated January 28, 2020, and Second Amendment dated August 23, 2022. (Complaint at line 6(d).)

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant was served with a five-day notice to pay rent or quit and that the period stated in this notice expired at the end of the day on June 5, 2026. (Complaint at 9(a)(8), (b).) Plaintiff contends that at the time the 3-day notice to pay rent or quit was served, the amount of rent due was $1,695,037.98. (Complaint at line 13.)

On June 15, 2026, Plaintiff filed a proof of service of summons regarding Defendant.

26CV013876: IIP-CA 1 LP, A DELAWARE PARTNERSHIP vs HORIZON COLLECTIVE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Unlawful Detainer Summons in Department 16C

On June 30, 2026 Defendant filed the instant motion to quash. This motion was originally set to be heard on December 22, 2026. On July 2, 2026, the Court (Hon. Miadich) granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application to advance the hearing date on this motion to July 23, 2026. In doing so, the Court ordered that Plaintiff’s ex parte application to advance the hearing date shall be deemed the opposition papers to defendant’s motion to quash.

On July 16, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s second ex parte application, this time to continue the July 23, 2026 hearing date on this motion to July 30, 2026. In doing so, the Court noted that Defendant’s reply was filed on July 16, 2026, and therefore the briefing on the motion was complete.

On July 22, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s third ex parte application to continue the July 30, 2026 hearing date to August 4, 2026.

Discussion

As stated in its notice of motion, Defendant moves to quash the unlawful detainer summons based on Code of Civil procedure section 418.10 “which includes an alleged failure to state a cause of action.” (Notice of Motion at 1:25-27.) In its moving memorandum of points and authorities, Defendant argues that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action as it is not the vested owner of the property. (Moving MPA at 4:17-18.) Specifically, Defendant argues that a Grant Deed recorded February 11, 2019 as Doc #201902110195 indicates that IIP-CA 1, LLC, not Plaintiff (IIP-CA 1, LP) is “currently shown as the true and correct vested title owner of the [Subject Premises].” (Id., at 6:4-10.)

Moreover, Defendant argues, “at not time did either IIP-CA 1 LLC or IIP 1 LP provide Defendant with notice pursuant to Civil Code § 1962 explaining a change in ownership or change in the nature of the owner” and that “[f]ailure to notify the tenant of a change in ownership can strip the new owner of standing to evict for nonpayment of rent.” (Id., at 5:16-18, 5:22-25.) Defendant concludes that its motion to quash the summons “must be granted because Plaintiff lacks standing to sue and is not the owner of the [Subject Premises] ” (Id., at 7:2-3.)

Plaintiff opposes, arguing that the two bases to quash put forth by Defendant—that Plaintiff’s alleged failure to comply with Civil Code section 1962, and that Plaintiff purportedly lacks standing as it is not the title owner of the Subject Premises—are without merit. (Ex Parte Application for Order Advancing the Hearing Date on Defendant’s Motion to Quash

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV013876: IIP-CA 1 LP, A DELAWARE PARTNERSHIP vs HORIZON COLLECTIVE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Unlawful Detainer Summons in Department 16C

[“Opposition”] at 10:19-21.) In regard to the first point, Plaintiff reasons that the Subject Premises is not a “dwelling” and thus Civil Code section 1962 is inapplicable. In regard to the second point, Plaintiff contends that “on March 19, 2019 ‘IIP-CA 1 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company’ changed its name and converted to ‘IIP-CA 1 LP, a Delaware limited partnership’.” (Id., at 12:22-23 [emphasis in original].) Thus, Plaintiff proffers that “‘IIP-CA 1 LP, a Delaware limited partnership’ is the plaintiff and owner of the [Subject Premises]” and that “[t]here is no legal requirement to transfer title to the [Subject Premises] from the limited liability company to the limited partnership prior to proceeding with this action.” (Id., at 13:5-7.) Accordingly, Defendant argues that the motion to quash should be denied in its entirety.

On reply, Defendant maintains that this motion should be granted because Plaintiff lacks standing to sue as it has failed to present evidence that it is the owner of the property subject to this unlawful detainer action. (Reply at 1: 22-27, 4:8-9)

As stated above, Defendant moves to quash service of summons pursuant to 418.10, which reads, in relevant part:

(a) A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes:

(1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her.

(2) To stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum.

(3) To dismiss the action pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 583.110) of Title 8.

Relying on Delta Imports, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 1033, 1035 (“Delta Imports”), Defendant argues that a defendant is entitled to an order quashing service if the underlying complaint fails to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer because the use of the unlawful detainer summons is then improper. (See Moving MPA at 3:23-28.) In opposing this motion, Plaintiff does not dispute this assertion. Rather, Plaintiff also cites to Delta Imports to support the proposition that, “[i]n unlawful detainer actions, a motion to quash service of process on the ground that the complaint fails to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer tests the sufficiency of the complaint.” (Opposition at 9:24-10:1.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV013876: IIP-CA 1 LP, A DELAWARE PARTNERSHIP vs HORIZON COLLECTIVE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Unlawful Detainer Summons in Department 16C

However, as will be explained below, the Court finds that Defendant improperly relies on Delta Imports to support its argument that this motion to quash should be granted on the ground that that complaint fails to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer.

In Delta Imports, the landlord brought an action for unlawful detainer against his tenant, alleging four breaches of the lease agreement including (1) failing to provide proof of insurance for bodily injury and property damage, (2) placing a sign on the premises without landlord’s permission, (3) installing clothing racks without the landlord’s permission, and (4) failing to pay the rent on time. (Delta Imports, supra, 146 Cal.App.3d at 1035.) The tenant filed a motion with the municipal court for an order quashing service of the summons on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer and thus could not support the issuance of a five-day unlawful detainer summons. (Ibid.)

The municipal court denied motion and the superior court issued an alternative writ and, after a hearing, entered judgment denying the petition. (Ibid.) On review, the Court of Appeal, reversed, remanded the cause to the superior court with directions to issue a peremptory writ of mandate directing the municipal court to quash service of process. (Id., at 1037.)

In so ruling, the Court of Appeal took issue “with the view expressed by the superior court in its notice of intended decision that defendant's remedy is a demurrer to the complaint, not a motion to quash service” and explained that “[a] motion to quash service is the only method by which the defendant can test whether the complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer and, thereby, supports a five-day summons.” (Id., at 1036.) The Court of Appeal then examined the landlord’s complaint, and determined that it did not state a cause of action for unlawful detainer because it did not contain any of the allegations regarding notice as required by section 1161, subdivision (3). (Ibid.)

Specifically, the complaint contained “no allegation that the notice was in writing, that it specified the alleged breaches of the lease, or that it unequivocally demanded possession.” (Ibid.) Accordingly, the Court of Appeals determined that complaint did not state a cause of action for unlawful detainer and thus the judgment of the superior court denying the tenant’s petition for a writ of mandate must be reversed. (Ibid.)

However, while cited by neither party, the California Supreme Court recently examined the holding of Delta Imports in its decision in Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381 (“Stancil”). In Stancil, the City of Redwood (the “City”) filed an unlawful detainer against a tenant of Docktown, Edward Stancil (the “tenant”). (Stancil, supra, 11 Cal.5th at 390.) The tenant made a motion to quash service of summons pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, arguing that only the port department, not the City, had jurisdiction over Docktown and thus the authority to sue him in unlawful detainer. (Id., at 391.) The tenant relied on Delta Imports to support his assertion that a motion quash was the proper procedure to raise a challenge on these grounds. (Ibid.) The City opposed the motion to quash, arguing that a subsequent Court

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV013876: IIP-CA 1 LP, A DELAWARE PARTNERSHIP vs HORIZON COLLECTIVE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Unlawful Detainer Summons in Department 16C

of Appeal case, Borsuk v. Appellate Division of Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 607 (“Borsuk”), disproved of Delta Imports and controlled. (Id., at 392.) The City thus contended that, under this new controlling authority, a motion to quash may only be used to challenge personal jurisdiction and cannot be used to attack a complaint for failure to state a claim. (Ibid.) The case ultimately made its way to the California Supreme Court, which granted review to decide “whether a defendant may use a motion to quash service of summons pursuant to section 418.10 to challenge a complaint on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer.” (Id., at 389.)

The High Court concluded:

that a defendant may not use a motion to quash service of summons to dispute the truth of the allegations contained in an unlawful detainer complaint. Rather, a motion to quash under section 418.10, subdivision (a)(1) is a limited procedural tool to contest personal jurisdiction over the defendant where the statutory requirements for service of process are not fulfilled. In the unlawful detainer context, a defendant may contest personal jurisdiction where the five- day summons specific to unlawful detainer actions is not supported by a complaint for unlawful detainer.

Such instances are unusual, and arise only where the summons is served alongside a complaint for a completely different cause of action (e.g., breach of contract) or a complaint that fails to allege the allegations necessary to assert the defendant is guilty of unlawful detainer as specified in the relevant subdivision of section 1161. In these rare and limited circumstances, a defendant may use a motion to quash to challenge the unlawful detainer five-day summons as improper. But no defendant may use a motion to quash service of summons as a means of disputing the merits of the unlawful detainer complaint's allegations or to argue the plaintiff failed to comply with the pleading requirements specific to unlawful detainer actions set out in section 1166.

(Id., at 390-391 [emphasis added].)

Accordingly, the High Court found that the superior court correctly found that the tenant improperly lodged his motion to quash to dispute the truth of the City’s allegations concerning its legal relationship with the tenant. (Id., at 391.) The High Court also addressed Delta Imports, explaining that:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV013876: IIP-CA 1 LP, A DELAWARE PARTNERSHIP vs HORIZON COLLECTIVE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Unlawful Detainer Summons in Department 16C

What the Court of Appeal reasoned in its brief opinion is that “[a] motion to quash service is the only method by which the defendant can test whether the complaint states a cause of action for unlawful detainer and, thereby, supports a five-day summons.” (Delta Imports, supra, 146 Cal.App.3d at p. 1036, 194 Cal.Rptr. 685.) [The tenant] erroneously reads this statement as other unlawful detainer defendants sometimes have: as authorizing a defendant to challenge a complaint using a motion to quash.

This abridged reading erroneously focuses on testing the complaint and ignores the Court of Appeal's conclusion regarding the propriety of the five-day summons. A careful reading of Delta Imports reveals the Court of Appeal deemed the motion to quash appropriate because the underlying complaint did not adhere to the requirements set forth in section 1161, subdivision 3. The complaint at issue was not one for unlawful detainer and could not support issuance of the unlawful detainer five-day summons.

(Id., at 398-399.)

The California Supreme Court further stated that Delta Imports and Greene v. Municipal Court (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 446 (which Delta Imports relied on) “clarify that where a fiveday summons is served with a complaint that fails to allege the defendant is guilty of unlawful detainer as defined in section 1161 or alleges a completely different cause of action, the summons is defective and may be challenged by a motion to quash under section 418.10, subdivision (a)(1).” (Id., at 399.)

Here, Defendant argues that this motion to quash should be granted because Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer. As stated above, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action as Plaintiff failed to provide Defendant with notice pursuant to Civil Code section 1962 and/or because Plaintiff is not the vested title owner of the Subject Premises.

The Court finds that Defendant is improperly attempting to use a motion to quash service of summons to argue that Plaintiff failed to comply with the pleading requirements for an unlawful detainer action. As explained above, the Court in Stancil made clear that while “a defendant may contest personal jurisdiction where the five-day summons specific to unlawful detainer actions is not supported by a complaint for unlawful detainer,” those “instances are unusual, and arise only where the summons is served alongside a complaint for a completely different cause of action (e.g., breach of contract) or a complaint that fails to allege the allegations necessary to assert the defendant is guilty of unlawful detainer as specified in the relevant subdivision of section 1161.” (Stancil,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV013876: IIP-CA 1 LP, A DELAWARE PARTNERSHIP vs HORIZON COLLECTIVE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Unlawful Detainer Summons in Department 16C

supra, 11 Cal.5th at 390.) Here, there is no argument (nor can there be) that the complaint served alongside the unlawful detainer summons is for a completely different cause of action, nor does Defendant make any argument that the complaint fails to state allegations required in the relevant subdivision of section 1161. Rather, Defendant attempts to dispute the truth of the allegations in the complaint (i.e., that Plaintiff is the owner of the Subject Premises, and/ or that Plaintiff lacks standing due to its purported noncompliance with Civil Code section 1962) and thus Defendant attempts to argue that Plaintiff failed to comply with the pleading requirements specific to unlawful detainer actions set out in section 1166.

However, the California Supreme Court explicitly explained that “no defendant may use a motion to quash service of summons as a means of disputing the merits of the unlawful detainer complaint's allegations or to argue the plaintiff failed to comply with the pleading requirements specific to unlawful detainer actions set out in section 1166.” (Id., at 391.)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant’s attempt to challenge the allegations within Plaintiff’s complaint through filing the instant motion is improper and Defendant’s motion to quash service of the summons is denied.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, Defendant’s motion to quash service of the summon is DENIED. If not already done, Defendant shall file and serve its responsive pleading no later than August 18, 2026.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV013876: IIP-CA 1 LP, A DELAWARE PARTNERSHIP vs HORIZON COLLECTIVE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Unlawful Detainer Summons in Department 16C

Department 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-servicestranscripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV013876: IIP-CA 1 LP, A DELAWARE PARTNERSHIP vs HORIZON COLLECTIVE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Unlawful Detainer Summons in Department 16C

Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 54 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***