AKKCD West Sacramento Inc v. Minnar

Case: AKKCD West Sacramento Inc v. Minnar Case No. CV2026-1921 Hearing Date: July 23, 2026 Department Thirteen 9:00 a.m.

Defendant Korey Minnar’s request for judicial notice is DENIED. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.) Defendant did not request judicial notice in a separate document as required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(l).)

Defendant’s unopposed motion to quash service of summons is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 418.10, subd. (a), 1167.4.) The Court notes that plaintiff AKKCD West Sacramento Inc has not yet filed a proof of service, showing service of the complaint on defendant. Further, the Court finds that plaintiff’s complaint is for unlawful detainer, and a motion to quash is not the appropriate mechanism for defendant’s asserted challenges. (Stancil v. Superior Court (2021) 11 Cal.5th 381, 390-391 [stating that a defendant can use a motion to quash when there are no unlawful detainer claims, but cannot use a motion to quash “to argue the plaintiff failed to comply with the pleading requirements specific to unlawful detainer actions set out in section 1166” or to contest the truth of the complaint’s allegations]; see also Motion, pp. 3-5.)

Defendant shall file his response to plaintiff’s complaint by no later than five days after service upon him of the written notice of entry of this order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1167.4, subd. (b).)

The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 11.2(b). Counsel for moving party, or the moving party if unrepresented by counsel, is ordered to notify the opposing party or parties immediately of the tentative ruling system.

If no hearing is requested, and no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

2 of 11