Demurrer
the same grounds and with the same information as in the Motion for Reconsideration.
A motion to strike is generally used to address defects that appear on the face of a pleading or from matters of which a judge may take judicial notice and that are not grounds for demurrer. (Pierson v. Sharp Memorial Hospital (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 340, 342.)
As to the Defendant’s assertion that this Court is acting as an advocate by referencing a code section in its ruling, the Court finds no merit to that charge by the Defendants. The California Court of Appeal held ““Courts are established to discover where lies the truth when issues are contested, and the final responsibility to see that justice is done rests with the judge.’” (People v. Carlucci (1979) 23 Cal.3d 249, 255 [152 Cal. Rptr. 439, 590 P.2d 15] (Carlucci) [discussing Evid. Code, § 775's codification of “traditional case law”]; accord, Conservatorship of Pamela J. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 807, 827 [35 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 228] (Pamela J.).) As the Court of Appeal in Pamela J. explained, “‘It apparently cannot be repeated too often for the guidance of a part of the legal profession that a judge is not a mere umpire presiding over a contest of wits between professional opponents, but a judicial officer entrusted with the grave task of determining where justice lies under the law and the facts between the parties who have sought the protection of our courts. Within reasonable limits, it is not only the right but the duty of a trial judge to clearly bring out the facts so that the important functions of his office may be fairly and justly performed.’” (Pamela J., at p. 827.).” (In re Emily D. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 438, 446-447.)
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?”
Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s ruling. 12 30-2026-01570337 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service Rize LKMS, LLC vs. of Summons. Richardson The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Order to Serve Summons by Posting (ROA 10).
The Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons.
The Defendant is ordered to file a responsive pleading in 5 days.
The Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s ruling. 13 30-2026-01571657 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Demurrer to the Jefferson Centerpoint Complaint (ROA 12), the Complaint (ROA 2), and Plaintiff’s Opposition LLC vs. Mizner (ROA 18).
The Court OVERRULES the Demurrer. On the face of the Complaint, it is legally sufficient to state a cause of action. The Complaint does indicate what type of rental agreement was between the parties, contrary to the allegations in the demurrer.
The Defendant is ordered to file an Answer within 5 business days.
The Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling.
14 30-2026-01578483 The Court has read and considered the Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service Liao vs. Romero of Summons (ROA 7) and the Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 15).
The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Proof of Service 10-day Summons & Complaint – Personal (ROA 17) and Proof of Service 10-day Summons & Complaint – Substitute (ROA 11).
California Evidence Code Section 647 states that a proof of service filed by a registered process server establishes a presumption that the facts stated in the document are true. Here, registered process server David del Castillo (Orange County #PS-6547) personally served Tavit Kasbarian on 6/25/26 at 8:47 AM, and then substituted served Natalie Romero via her co-defendant after two previous attempts at personal service.
Contained within the Defendants’ Motion to Quash is an argument akin to a demurrer, in which the Defendants contend that the Complaint fails to meet the minimal requirements for validity. Defendants argue that CCP §1161(2) has specific requirements that the Plaintiff failed to provide and there was no notice as required under CCP §1161(2). The basis of the Complaint as alleged is CCP §1161(1) that there was a fixed-term lease, the fixed-term lease was not extended by agreement, and Defendants failed to vacate; therefore, the Plaintiff seeks to evict them.
The Court DENIES the Defendants' Motion to Quash Service.
The Defendants are ordered to file a responsive pleading within 5 days.
The Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling. 15 30-2026-01575983 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service Arturo Andrade As of Summons (ROA 6). Trustee Of The Arturo Andrade & Daisy The Court GRANTS the motion to quash service of summons. The Court Sarmiento Living signed an order to serve summons by posting on 7/8/2026. Plaintiff is ordered Trust vs. Farjardo to properly serve the Defendant with the Summons and Complaint. The Court will note as this is a commercial tenancy, service should also be in compliance with the notice requirements contained within the lease agreement.
The Court Clerk will provide notice of the Court’s ruling.