AGBSC, LLC v. Matthew Gavin, et al.

The court orders Michael Jones to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 24, 2026 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court

Court of California County of Los Angeles - Central District Department 513 AGBSC, LLC; Plaintiff, vs. Matthew Gavin, et al., Defendants. | Case No.: |

| | | Hearing Date: | August 24, 2026 | | | Time: | 10:00 a.m. | | | [Tentative] Order RE: Demurrer to Complaint

| MOVING PARTY: Defendants Matthew Gavin and Mangia Apizza SC, LLC RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff AGBSC, LLC Demurrer to Complaint The court considered the moving and opposition papers filed in connection with this demurrer.

DISCUSSION Defendants Matthew Gavin and Mangia Apizza SC, LLC ("Defendants") demur to the Complaint--Unlawful Detainer filed by plaintiff AGBSC, LLC ("Plaintiff"). The court sustains the demurrer because the Complaint does not allege proper service of a three-day notice to pay rent or quit as a prerequisite to maintaining an action for unlawful detainer. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 430.10, subd. (e).)

A tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer "[w]hen the tenant continues in possession . . . after default in the payment of rent . . . and three days' notice, excluding Saturdays and Sundays and other judicial holidays, in writing, requiring its payment, stating the amount that is due, the name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent payment shall be made, and, if payment may be made personally, the usual days and hours that person will be available to receive the payment . . . or possession of the property, shall have been served upon the tenant . . . ." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1161, subd. 2.)

Valid service of a proper three-day notice is an element of a claim for unlawful detainer. (Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1425.) A lessor must strictly comply with the statutory notice requirements. (Liebovich v. Shahrokhkhany (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 511, 513.)

A three-day notice may ordinarily be served on a commercial tenant by personal service. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1162, subd. (b)(1).) If the tenant is absent from the property, the notice may be served by substituted service by leaving a copy "with some person of suitable age and discretion at the property, and sending a copy through the mail addressed to the tenant at the address where the property is situated." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1162, subd. (b)(2).)

If, at the time service is attempted, "a person of suitable age or discretion is not found at the rental property through the exercise of reasonable diligence," then the notice may be served "by affixing a copy in a conspicuous place on the property, and also sending a copy through the mail addressed to the tenant at the address where the property is situated." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1162, subd. (b)(3).)

The court finds that the Declaration of Service attached to the Complaint does not demonstrate the exercise of reasonable diligence which would justify service by posting as described in the declaration. (Complaint Ex. 3 [PDF Page 10].) Nothing in the Complaint addresses any efforts which were undertaken to serve the three-day notice on Defendants by personal or substituted service. The Complaint therefore fails to allege proper service of a three-day notice to pay rent or quit.

The burden is on the plaintiff "to articulate how it could amend its pleading to render it sufficient." ¿ (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth ¿ (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290.) ¿ To satisfy that burden, a plaintiff " must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading. " ¿ (Goodman v. Kennedy ¿ (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) ¿ The court finds that Plaintiff has not articulated the facts that could be alleged to demonstrate that the three-day notice to pay rent or quit was properly served, and therefore sustains the demurrer without leave to amend.

ORDER The court SUSTAINS the demurrer brought by defendants Matthew Gavin and Mangia Apizza SC, LLC to the Complaint filed by AGBSC, LLC without leave to amend. This action is dismissed. All future hearings in this action are advanced to this date and vacated. The court orders defendants Matthew Gavin and Mangia Apizza SC, LLC to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 24, 2026 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: 26STCV05055 Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 Dept: 513 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles - Central District Department 513 Joseph Rose; Plaintiff, vs. Slater Slater and Schulman, LLP, et al., Defendants. | Case No.: | 26STCV05055 |