Demurrer to and motion to strike first amended complaint
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MAY 18, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES
Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.
No. 23CV00639
CAPITOLA STRONG, INC. v. LA SERENA PROPERTIES LLC
DEMURRER TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend and the motion to strike is granted. Plaintiffs’ action relates to a residential lease signed by plaintiff Capitola Strong Inc. and cannot be maintained since that entity is unrepresented by counsel.1 As shown by defendant’s request for judicial notice, Capitola Strong Inc. signed the residential lease and thereafter lost an unlawful detainer court trial related to the lease. There is no reasonable possibility that the defects in plaintiffs’ first amended complaint can be cured by amendment and it is dismissed with prejudice. (Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037.)
Self-represented plaintiffs Michelle Strong and LaSalle Strong filed an untimely opposition, three court days late. The Court declines to consider it. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300
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?”
1 Plaintiffs appear to have entered a dismissal as to Capitola Strong, Inc. to avoid a ruling related to its inability to appear. However, its removal from this action fails to change the underlying issue that the corporate entity signed the residential lease and lost the residential unlawful detainer trial.
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MAY 18, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
To make exceptions for self-represented parties would “lead to a quagmire in the trial courts.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 985.)
Defendant’s request for judicial notice (Exhibits A and B) is granted.