BRE-FMCA, LLC vs. Rios

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,