Valadez, Brenda et al vs. DLR Management Group, Inc.

matter and Code of Civil Procedure section 1174(g). The conclusory allegation that the writ was issued "wrongfully" is insufficient and Plaintiff has not otherwise demonstrated conduct beyond what is permitted pursuant to the writ's plain language noted above. Neither has Plaintiff properly challenged the underlying basis for the issuance of the writ of possession. Further, section 1174(g) states no requirement as to where the storage must occur, only that it is "in a place of safekeeping."

Plaintiff alleges: "29...Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with compliant written notice identifying the location of storage, the manner by which the property could be reclaimed, or any meaningful inventory or condition disclosure concerning Plaintiff's Personal Property.

30. Defendant further failed to provide Plaintiff with any meaningful or reasonably accessible retrieval procedure despite repeated demands for return of the property, and instead retained discretionary control over the location, movement, access, and release of Plaintiff's Personal Property through informal and shifting communications outside the statutory framework." (SAC P.P.29, 30.)

However, subsection (h) requires: " The landlord shall release the personal property pursuant to Section 1965 of the Civil Code or shall release it to the tenant or, at the landlord's option, to a person reasonably believed by the landlord to be its owner if the tenant or other person pays the costs of storage as provided in Section 1990 of the Civil Code and claims the property not later than the date specified in the writ of possession before which the tenant must make his or her claim or the date specified in the notice before which a person other than the tenant must make his or her claim." (emphasis added)

Here, there is no allegation that Plaintiff, an apparent former tenant, has paid the costs of storage and/or claimed the property not later than the date provided in the writ of possession, which appears to be 15 days from the date of the writ. Therefore, the Court sustains the demurrer to the complaint.

A demurrer cannot be sustained without leave to amend where it appears that the facts alleged establish a cause of action under any possible legal theory or it is reasonably possible that the plaintiff can amend the complaint to allege any cause of action. (Canton Poultry & Deli, Inc v. Stockwell, Harris, Widom, and Woolverton (2003) 109 Cal.App.4 th 1219, 1226.) Plaintiff shall have ten (10) days from the date of this hearing to file an amended complaint.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re: Valadez, Brenda et al vs. DLR Management Group, Inc. Case No.: VCU310362 Date: August 25, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 9-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide Motion: Plaintiff's Motions to Enforce Court Orders re: Defendant Kamohai as to (1) Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One); (2) Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Set Two); (3) Further Responses to Request For Production of Documents (Set One) (4) Further Responses to Requests for Admissions (Set One) Tentative Ruling: (1) through (4): To inquire as to the coordination of the deposition and other issues raised by these motions with respect to notice and service on Defendant Kamohai.