Demurrer to Amended Complaint
Commercial, Paul Fisher” as the dual agent as “NAI Capital Commercial”.
Importantly, NAI provides no legal authority on point to show that a typo in its name rendered it unaware that it is the property entity in this case. (See e.g. Sakaguchi v Sakaguchi (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 852, 861–862.)
On Reply for the first time, NAI argues that there are actually two different entities and thus the naming issue is not a minor typo.
NAI says that “NAI Capital, Inc. (that brokered the Lease originally) filed for bankruptcy in 2020. NAI Capital Commercial, Inc. purchased NAI Capital, Inc.’s assets free and clear out of bankruptcy via Bankruptcy Court order. That NAI Capital Commercial, Inc. brokered later transactions regarding property that was not subject to any lis pendens and had no disposition restriction on title...” (Reply, p. 3:6- 16.)
But these “facts” are not supported by any evidence (not even properly provided sworn testimony), and this argument is made for the first time on reply.
Based on the judicially noticed documents and the opposition papers, the Court finds that service is proper. This is the only issue before the Court.
The Motion is denied.
NAI Capital Commercial Inc. shall give notice of this ruling.
10 Pelagio vs. County of Orange
2022-01292229 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication
Court will hear argument. 11 Salvador vs. City of Santa Ana
2025-01463617 Demurrer to Amended Complaint
Court will hear argument
Case Management Conference – remains on calendar 12 Takahashi vs. American Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written)
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?”