DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24STCV27815·la·Civil·Landlord-Tenant / Habitability
Hearing todayGranted

Jonathan Soto and Monique Soto v. Delaware Covina Grand Apartments, LLC

Motion to Dismiss

Hearing date
Aug 25, 2026
Department
617
Judge
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffJonathan Soto
PlaintiffMonique Soto
DefendantDelaware Covina Grand Apartments, LLC

Ruling

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 617) August 25, 2026 DEPARTMENT 617 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

617 Date: 8-25-26 Case #: 24STCV27815 Trial Date: 2-22-27 MOTION TO DISMISS MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Delaware Covina Grand Apartments, LLC RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiffs, Jonathan Soto and Monique Soto RELIEF REQUESTED Motion to Dismiss SUMMARY OF ACTION Plaintiffs Jonathan and Monique Soto sued their landlord, Defendant Delaware Covina Grand Apartments, LLC, alleging uninhabitable conditions in their unit due to fire damage, inadequate heat, lack of water, and roach infestation. Plaintiffs asserted claims for: (1) Breach of Warranty of Habitability; (2) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (3) Negligence/Negligence Per Se; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (5) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

On July 22, 2025, the Court sustained Defendant's demurrer to the complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiffs never filed an amended complaint following the ruling. RULING: Granted. Defendant moves to dismiss the action under Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (f)(2), based on Plaintiffs' failure to amend their complaint following Defendants' successful demurrer on July 22, 2025. Plaintiffs were granted 30-days' leave to amend but failed to do so. Defendant's motion to dismiss is therefore granted. (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 581, subd. (f)(2).) The dismissal is with prejudice. Defendant to give notice. Case Number: 25STCV19576 Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 Dept: 617 Dept. 617 Date: 8-25-26

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share