Opendoor Property Trust I v. Zhang, et al

19. Opendoor Property Trust I v. Zhang, et al, Case No. LLTSB2400104 Motion for Summary Judgment Against All Occupants 7/14/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

The Court is inclined to CONTINUE so that movant can supplement and provide all the exhibits referenced – but not included – in the DeVonne declaration. Movant must also file the underlying Proof of Service (POS).

This is an unlawful detainer action. Plaintiff Opendoor asserts it is the owner of the at-issue property and that Defendant-Tenant failed to vacate after a five-day notice to vacate. As such, it filed an unlawful detainer action on October 2, 2024.

Relevant here, a motion for summary judgment against Defendant Zhang was entered on May 21, 2026. That judgment is currently on appeal. On June 6, 2026, Plaintiff sought to amend the judgment by ex parte to add “All Occupants,” stating that the POS on All Occupants was inadvertently not filed with the Court. On June 11, 2026, the Court denied that ex parte application but stated Plaintiff could bring a motion for summary judgment. This motion followed.

The motion will need to be continued because the documents that Plaintiff purports to attach – that purportedly demonstrate service on All Occupants and show compliance with Code of Civil Procedure sections 415.46 and 1174.25 related to serving occupants with a Prejudgment Claim of Right of Possession – are not attached to the DeVonne declaration. At the very least, the Court would need: • Exhibit A – Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession; • Exhibit C – Proof of Service reflecting service pursuant to the Court’s posting order; and • Exhibit D – Proof of Service on All Occupants executed by the registered California process server.

It also is unclear why the POS of Summons on All Occupants reflecting service of the summons, complaint, and Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession has not been separately filed with the Court.

*** *** ***

2