Demurrer
Case No. 26CV484388 Demurrer
I. BACKGROUND On July 8, 2026, Defendant EAH Housing Inc. (“EAH”), filed a demurrer to Plaintiffs Rosette Simon and Shaquille Ceesay’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The demurrer was accompanied by a proof of electronic mail and mail service upon the plaintiffs on July 8, 2026.
The motion is unopposed. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) opposition papers were due on July 24, 2026. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rule of Court Rule 8.54(c)). Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the defendant has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489).
II. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, a party may demur to a complaint on the grounds that it “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e)). A demurrer tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 (Hahn)). When considering demurrers, courts accept all well pleaded facts as true. (Fox v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078). In ruling on a demurrer, the Court treats it “as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Piccinini v. Cal. Emergency Management Agency (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 685, 688, citing
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?”
III. ANALYSIS Here, Defendant EAH avers that the FAC as currently drafted, does not state facts sufficient to allege causes of actions against EAH. Defense has attempted to meet-and-confer with the plaintiffs regarding a possible amended complaint. Per defense the plaintiffs have refused to amend the FACT. (Declaration of Sera ⁋⁋ 4-6, Exhibit B).
THE FAC filed on May 8, 2026 is handwritten and alleges negligence against the defendant pertaining to claims, including, but not limited to a breach of implied warranty of habitability, harassment and retaliation, failure to return rental deposit, and seeks $15,00,000.00 in damages.
Applying section 431.10, the Court considers that all material facts are properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusion of the law. The motion is unopposed. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) opposition papers were due on July 24, 2026. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rule of Court Rule 8.54(c)). Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the defendant has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489).
IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the unopposed demurrer the Court SUSTAINS Defendant EAH’s demurrer with twenty (20) day leave to amend from the date of this hearing. The Court will prepare the formal Order.
// // //
Calendar Line # 7 Case Name Keith Lyle vs Ford Motor Company et al