Joseph Rose v. Slater Slater and Schulman, LLP, et al.

to allege proper service of a three-day notice to pay rent or quit. The burden is on the plaintiff "to articulate how it could amend its pleading to render it sufficient." ¿ (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth ¿ (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290.) ¿ To satisfy that burden, a plaintiff " must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading. " ¿ (Goodman v. Kennedy ¿ (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) ¿ The court finds that Plaintiff has not articulated the facts that could be alleged to demonstrate that the three-day notice to pay rent or quit was properly served, and therefore sustains the demurrer without leave to amend.

ORDER The court SUSTAINS the demurrer brought by defendants Matthew Gavin and Mangia Apizza SC, LLC to the Complaint filed by AGBSC, LLC without leave to amend. This action is dismissed. All future hearings in this action are advanced to this date and vacated. The court orders defendants Matthew Gavin and Mangia Apizza SC, LLC to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 24, 2026 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court

Court of California County of Los Angeles - Central District Department 513 Joseph Rose; Plaintiff, vs. Slater Slater and Schulman, LLP, et al., Defendants. | Case No.: |

|

| | Hearing Date: | August 24, 2026 | | | Time: | 10:00 a.m. | | | [Tentative] Order RE: MOTION TO DISMISS | MOVING PARTY: Defendants James W. Lewis, Andrew L. Chung, and Slater Slater and Schulman, LLP RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Joseph Rose Motion to Dismiss The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion. The court did not consider the opposition papers filed by plaintiff Joseph Rose in connection with this motion because there is no proof of service of those papers on the moving party.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE The court denies the requests for judicial notice accompanying the motion as immaterial to the court's ruling. (Gbur v. Cohen (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 296, 301 ("[J]udicial notice . . . is always confined to those matters which are relevant to the issue at hand."].) DISCUSSION Defendants James W. Lewis, Andrew L. Chung, and Slater Slater and Schulman, LLP ("Defendants") move to dismiss this action filed by plaintiff Joseph Rose ("Plaintiff") on the grounds of inconvenient forum.

The court denies the motion as a misplaced challenge to the merits of the pleadings. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 418.10, 430.10 subds. (c), (e).) Defendants contend that this action is improper because Plaintiff filed a separate action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in which he alleged identical claims that have been dismissed, and appeal remains pending. (Motion

p. 1:8-17.) This is an argument for either issue or claim preclusion, which goes to the failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim or, alternatively, an argument that there is another action pending. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 430.10, subds. (c), (e).) This is not an argument that the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles is an inconvenient forum. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 418.10, subd. (a); Fox Factory, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 197, 203 [test for evaluating issue of inconvenient forum].)

ORDER The court DENIES defendants James W. Lewis, Andrew L. Chung, and Slater Slater and Schulman, LLP's motion to dismiss. Defendants James W. Lewis, Andrew L. Chung, and Slater Slater and Schulman, LLP have made a general appearance as of the date of this order. The court orders defendants James W. Lewis, Andrew L. Chung, and Slater Slater and Schulman, LLP to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 24, 2026 _____________________________ Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court | Home -->)" -->