The Salvation Army Anaheim Center of Hope Apartments, L.P. vs. Shoemake

Court must assume that the statements contained within the Complaint are true in determining facial sufficiency. As such, the Court OVERRULES the Defendant’s demurrer. Based on only the information contained within the complaint and its attachments, there is sufficient basis to state a cause of action for an unlawful detainer. The issues raised by the Defendant in the Demurrer regarding the payments of rent and the possible overstatement of rent in the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit are factual determinations that will be addressed at trial.

The Defendant is ordered to file an Answer within 5 business days.

The Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling. 8 30-2026-01576285 The Court has read and considered the Defendants’ Demurrer to the UDR Eight80 I L.P. Complaint (ROA 30) and the Complaint (ROA 2). vs. Helisen When a party files a demurrer, the Court looks at the facial sufficiency of the complaint and attachments only and cannot consider extrinsic evidence. The Court must assume that the statements contained within the Complaint are true in determining facial sufficiency. As such, the Court OVERRULES the Defendants’ demurrer.

Based on only the information contained within the complaint and its attachments, there is sufficient basis to state a cause of action for an unlawful detainer. The issues raised by the Defendants in the Demurrer regarding the payments of rent and the possible overstatement of rent in the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit are factual determinations that will be addressed at trial.

The Defendants are ordered to file an Answer within 2 business days.

The Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling. 10 30-2026-01567687 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Compel The Salvation Army Further Discovery Responses and Motion to Continue Trial (ROA 43, 45, 51, Anaheim Center of and 57), Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 66) and Defendant’s Reply to Hope Apartments, L.P. Opposition (ROA 76). vs. Shoemake In the June 8, 2026, Minute Order, the Court originally set this matter for a jury trial on June 29, 2026, with a pretrial conference on 6/26/2026. (ROA 27.)

The Clerk sent notice to the parties of the trial setting. (ROA 28.) In the June 12, 2026, Minute Order, the pretrial conference date was changed to 7/1/2026 and the jury trial date to 7/13/2026. (ROA 33.) No notice was sent to the parties regarding the date change. On June 26, 2026, Temporary Judge Johanson heard about the pretrial conference in which the Plaintiff requested a continuance of the pretrial conference and jury trial, which the court granted, and the pretrial conference was set for 7/10/2026 and the jury trial for 7/13/2026; the Defendant’s counsel was not present for the hearing (ROA 34).

Per the Declaration of Defense Counsel, he requested a meet-and-confer regarding the discovery issues on June 19, 2026, which was well within the discovery period. Defense counsel states the Plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond to this email; therefore, on June 30, 2026, Defense Counsel emailed a letter detailing the issues with discovery, requesting a meeting with Plaintiff’s

counsel. There was disagreement between counsel on the meeting date. On July 6, 2026, Defense Counsel filed this motion.

It is the expectation of this Court that the attorneys and parties work cooperatively together to ensure justice and expedience of the court process. The Court is well aware of each attorney's obligation to represent their respective parties and their parties' interests, but each attorney has an obligation, as an officer of the Court, not to delay the Court's process. It is the perspective of this Court that this matter should have been resolved between counsel without the need for Court intervention.

Plaintiff’s counsel was on notice that Defense Counsel was filing this motion, and due to a technical error, the motion was not transmitted as Defense Counsel believed. There is no indication that Plaintiff’s Counsel notified Defense Counsel that the document had not been received other than the filing of their Opposition.

Although California Code of Civil Procedure §2024.050 closes the timeline for discovery 5 days prior to the initially set trial date, here Defense counsel was in compliance with that timeline during the initial request to meet and confer regarding the discovery issues; Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to meet and confer outside of the discovery timeline in July 2026 but then ultimately there was a breakdown in the process leading to this motion. The Court finds, given the circumstances as stated, that the Court does not find the Motion to Compel Further Discovery untimely.

The Court GRANTS IN PART the Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses:

The Court denies the request to compel further discovery regarding the request for admission; the Plaintiff has stated a justifiable objection to the specific admissions requested because they call for a legal conclusion rather than a factual admission.

Regarding the request for production of documents: 18 – Plaintiff is to turn over all documents and all communications relating to an offer by the Plaintiff to assist the Defendant with the cleaning and upkeep of the rental unit from June 2025 to May 6, 2026 (filing of the complaint date). Plaintiff is to turn over the Housing Retention and Lease Violation Plan if one was created. This order does not include documents which are covered by attorney-client privilege. 19 – Denied. Defendant is responsible for custody and control as to her own documents listing or determining mental and physical limitations. 20 – Denied.

Item has been previously provided or would be covered relating to the Court’s order on #18. 21 – Plaintiff is to turn over all documentation in their possession relating to Defendant Gloria Shoemake’s eligibility for permanent supportive housing. The Court is not requiring all communications, as this is overboard, vague and overburdensome. 23 – Denied. Plaintiff’s objection is well founded. 25 – Plaintiff is ordered to turn over all written documentation of on-site supportive services which Plaintiff offers to tenants of the property, if any.

Court is specifically not ordered to turn over all communications, as it is overbroad, ambiguous, and potentially a violation of HIPAA regarding other tenants' specific ADA accommodation or needs.

Court DENIES as to the Special Interrogatory #4.

Defendant is ordered to produce the items as indicated in the above ruling within 7 business days of today’s date.

The Court continues the Pretrial Conference date to 8/14/2026 at 8:30 AM in Dept. C61 and the Jury Trial is set for 8/17/2026 at 8:30 AM.

The previously set trial dates are vacated.

11 30-2026-01570049 The Court has read and considered Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Request for Rancho Tierra Admissions, Set One, Admitted (ROA 38). Apartments LLC vs. De Olivas IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Request for Admissions, Set One, Admitted is granted and that the truth of all specified matters, and the genuineness of all specified documents, in the First Set of Requests for Admission, propounded by Plaintiff and served on Defendant Donna Riccobono on July 1, 2026, be deemed admitted.

The Court orders the Defendant, Christian De Olivas, forthwith to pay a sanction in the amount of $810 to Plaintiff's Counsel. This sum shall be made payable to "Kimball, Tirey & St. John, LLP" within 10 business days of service of this order and shall be delivered via mail to 2040 Main Street, Suite 500, Irvine, CA 92614. If any party is required to further enforce the terms herein, the party enforcing this Judgment shall be entitled to further attorneys' fees and costs.

The Court Orders Plaintiff to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.

13 30-2026-01580043 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service Mahgerefteh vs. of Summons and Complaint (ROA 11), Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 14) and Hawes Defendant’s Reply to Opposition (ROA 18).

Defendant is ordered to provide the Deputy assigned to C61 with the actual footage referenced in his motion for the Court to review. 14 30-2026-01582621 The Court has read and considered the Defendants, Jinghui Chen and Irvine Promenade Apts Yunghan Wu’s Motion to Quash Service (ROA 23). I LLC vs. Chen The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Court Docket regarding this matter.

The Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service showing personal or substituted service on the Defendants. There is no order to serve the summons by posting. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Jinghui Chen and Yunghan Wu’s Motion to Quash Service.

The Court Clerk is to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.