Unlawful Detainer (Related Case)

(Id. at 258.)

Plaintiff cites to no legal authority holding that a five-year lease not signed by either party survives the defense of the statute of frauds.

Plaintiff also fails to demonstrate a risk of irreparable harm.

Plaintiff’s CFO, Steven Bolden submits a declaration. (ROA 13.) He states that “Plaintiff’s business consists of manufacturing, marketing and distribution of products in the wellness and automobile electronics industries.” (Bolden Decl., ¶ 4.) He also states that having to move Plaintiff’s operations would “disrupt Plaintiff’s business and pose a potential risk the[sic] Plaintiff’s inventory.” (Bolden Decl., ¶ 14.) He also states that finding a substitute property would be difficult and expensive, and that Plaintiff’s employees might resign. (Bolden Decl., ¶¶ 15-16.)

These statements are somewhat conclusory. No detail is provided about the size of Plaintiff’s inventory that it would need to move and store. Nor is any information provided regarding the type of property that Plaintiff requires to operate its business. It is further unclear why Plaintiff’s employees would resign due to a move. In short, Plaintiff does not meet its burden to establish irreparable injury.

In addition, Plaintiff has not shown that monetary remedies are inadequate. When an award of damages constitutes an adequate legal remedy, a judge may not issue a preliminary injunction. (Tahoe Keys Prop. Owners' Ass'n v State Water Resources Control Bd. (1994) 23 CA4th 1459, 1471.)

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s application for a preliminary injunction is denied.

The Court has reviewed the Notice of Related Case filed in this matter. The Court stays this matter pending the outcome of the related Complaint for Unlawful Detainer filed in Orange County Superior Case No. 30-2026-01559888. The case management conference of August 10, 2026 is vacated. The Court sets a review hearing re: status of the stay for August 31, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Department C27.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

105 2025-01473824 1. Demurrer to Answer 2. Case Management Conference Guerrero vs. BJ's 3. Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions for Failure to File Case Management Statement Restaurants, Inc. Plaintiff Nikole Guerrero’s demurrer to each affirmative defense in Defendant BJ’s Restaurants, Inc.’s answer is sustained in part, with 15 days leave to amend, and overruled in part.

Legal Standard

CCP section 431.30, subdivision (b), provides: The answer to a complaint shall contain: (1) The general or specific denial of the material allegations of the complaint controverted by the defendant. (2) A statement of any new matter constituting a defense.

There are three grounds for a demurrer to an answer: (1) failure to state facts sufficient to