Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Stipulation, the Court enforces the parties' agreement by ordering this unlawful detainer action dismissed.
The Court makes no factual findings regarding the existence or extent of any alleged property damage. Nothing in this ruling precludes either party from pursuing any claims or defenses relating to alleged damage to the premises in a separate civil action.
The Court further finds that there is no prevailing party with respect to the motion presently before the Court. Accordingly, neither party is entitled to recover attorney's fees incurred in bringing or opposing the motion. 12 30-2026-01562015 Due to Court congestion, on its own motion, the Court is continuing this Bendy vs. Simpson matter to July 29, 2026 at 8:30 AM in Department C61. 13 30-2026-01564845 This matter is off calendar. The Motion to Dismiss was ruled on 5/11/2026 in BRE-FMCA, LLC vs. ROA 23. Rios 14 30-2026-01574957 The Court has read and considered the Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on Malki vs. Espinoza the Pleadings; Pursuant to CCP 438 and Subsections (ROA 24) and Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 42).
A motion for judgment on the pleadings tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint based solely on the factual allegations pleaded and matters subject to judicial notice, without consideration of extrinsic evidence. (See Heffesse v. Guevara (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th Supp. 74, 82.)
Here, Defendants seek judgment on the pleadings on two grounds: (1) the notice of termination incorrectly identifies the subject property's city as La Habra, when the property is located in Anaheim; and (2) the notice fails to identify the landlord by name or provide the landlord's contact information.
The second argument lacks merit. California Civil Code section 1946.2, subdivision (b)(2)(D), governs the notice requirements for a no-fault just- cause termination based on an intent to demolish or substantially remodel the residential property. Nothing in that statute requires a notice of termination to include the landlord's name, address, telephone number, or email address. By contrast, the Legislature expressly required such information in Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (2), which mandates that certain notices identify the person to whom rent is payable and provide that person's name, telephone number, address, and, where payment is to be made in person, the usual days and hours of availability.
The omission of comparable language from Civil Code section 1946.2 demonstrates that the Legislature did not intend to impose those requirements on a notice issued under that statute.
With respect to the erroneous identification of the property's city, the Court recognizes that such an error could, in some circumstances, be materially prejudicial because it may affect a tenant's understanding of which municipal ordinances govern the tenancy and the local legal protections available. However, Defendants have not identified any applicable city-specific ordinance that would alter the parties' rights or obligations, nor have they requested judicial notice of any such ordinance. Moreover, the documents accompanying the notice of termination, including the attached city permits,
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?”
repeatedly identify the property's correct street address, thereby reducing any potential for confusion regarding the premises at issue.
Accordingly, Defendants have not established that the alleged defects render the notice legally insufficient as a matter of law. The Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is therefore DENIED.
The Pretrial Conference of 7/31/2026 at 8:30 AM in Dept. C61 and Jury Trial of 8/3/2026 at 8:30 AM in Dept. C61 remain as calendared.
Plaintiff and Defendants are admonished to comply with Local Rule 317 as indicated in the 7/6/2026 Minute Order (ROA 46) regarding Jury documents and the requirement to meet and confer prior to the pretrial date to create joint documents as required under Local Rule 317, or the parties will be subject to sanctions under Local Rule 381.
The Court Clerk is to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.
15 30-2026-01564533 The Court has read and considered the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Cooper Fellowship, Judgment (ROA 22) and Declaration in Support (ROA 20). Inc. vs. Bonner Under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.300(b) states “Whenever a party in a civil action knows or learns that the action or proceeding is related to another action or proceeding pending, dismissed, or disposed of by judgment in any state or federal court in California, the party must serve and file a Notice of Related Case.” Neither party in this matter has complied with Rule 3.300 as to the related case which is referenced in Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5 of the Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the ongoing litigation regarding the Cooper Fellowship Inc. (Case No. 30-2026-01545367-CU-CO-CJC).
In the Defendant’s Answer, the Defendant disputes the Plaintiff’s authority to act on behalf of Cooper Fellowship Inc. The Court takes judicial notice that unlimited civil action in Case No. 30-2026-01545367-CU-CO-CJC is pending, which is litigating the lawful Board of Directors of Cooper Fellowship Inc., in which that Judicial Officer issued a preliminary injunction against Pal Lengyel-Leahu temporarily enjoining him from acting on behalf of Cooper Fellowship. As the matter is not fully litigated and there is no final order of the Court, the Court finds that there is a material issue in dispute as to whether the Plaintiff has legal standing to evict Ms. Bonner in this unlawful detainer action.
Therefore, the Court DENIES the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court Clerk is to give notice of the Court’s ruling. 16 30-2026-01577309 The Court has read and considered Defendant’s Motion for Order Deeming Yang vs. Byun Requests for Admissions, Set One, Admitted (ROA 13).
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Deem Requests 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 Defendant and served on Plaintiff