VENETHONGKHAM vs CLEAR RECON CORPS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Defendant demurs to the only cause of action on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and/or is uncertain.

Legal Standard

The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleading it challenges by raising

25CV030675: VENETHONGKHAM vs CLEAR RECON CORPS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 08/06/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 16C

questions of law. (Salimi v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 216, 219; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271.) A demurrer “tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) Extrinsic evidence may not properly be considered on demurrer or on a motion to strike. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881; Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897) 117 Cal. 481, 482.)

For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view toward substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140-141; Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) In this respect, the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-1112.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) “Plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief ..., we are not concerned with plaintiff's possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 696-697.) The sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action, not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)

Discussion

As noted above, a demurrer is limited to the allegations of the pleading and only those matters for which the Court may properly take judicial notice. Here, Defendant’s arguments extend beyond the limits of a demurrer and ask the Court to evaluate the merits of Plaintiff’s claims.

First, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails because the Residential Lease Agreement Plaintiff submitted along with Plaintiff’s affidavit of compliance was entered into after the Notice of Default was recorded. Defendant further argues the lease agreement “does not call itself a ‘renewal’ of any earlier Lease, and makes no mention of any earlier Lease.” (Demurrer at 3:4-5.) While the Court has taken judicial notice of the affidavit of compliance, this extends only to the existence of the document, and not the truth of its contents. In order to accept Defendant’s argument, the Court would be required to delve into the contents of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030675: VENETHONGKHAM vs CLEAR RECON CORPS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 08/06/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 16C

affidavit and the attached lease agreement, which the Court may not do on a demurrer. Accordingly, the demurrer on this ground is OVERRULED.

Next, Defendant argues the Complaint fails because Plaintiff did not submit a copy of a nonbinding Notice of Intent to Bid or any evidence of an actual bid payment. The demurrer on this ground is OVERRULED. The argument is improper on demurrer and asks the Court to extend its analysis beyond the allegations of the Complaint.

Lastly, Defendant contends the Complaint is uncertain because it “does not specify whether Plaintiff is alleging that she provided a Notice of Intent to Bid or provided an actual overbid.” (Demurrer at 4:2-3.) The demurrer for uncertainty is OVERRULED. The allegations are not so uncertain that the Defendant cannot frame a response. Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and are only granted where the complaint is so muddled that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. The favored approach is to clarify theories in the complaint through discovery. (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695; see also Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant shall file an Answer on or before August 20, 2026.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Defendant is directed to contact Plaintiff and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If Defendant is unable to contact Plaintiff prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030675: VENETHONGKHAM vs CLEAR RECON CORPS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 08/06/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 16C

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030675: VENETHONGKHAM vs CLEAR RECON CORPS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 08/06/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 16C

hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL- SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 54 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***