Pahu vs. Crawford

Non-appearances: If nobody appears for the hearing and the Court has not been notified that all parties submit on the tentative ruling, the Court shall determine whether the matter is taken off calendar or the tentative ruling becomes the final ruling. The Court also might make a different order at the hearing. (Lewis v. Fletcher Jones Motor Cars, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 436, 442, fn. 1.)

# Case Name Tentative 7 30-2026-01570049 Pending; check back later Rancho Tierra Apartments LLC vs. De Olivas 10 30-2025-01473837 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Pahu vs. Crawford Judgment (ROA 44).

The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Complaint (ROA 2).

The Court GRANTS the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. No issues of triable fact or law remain, as the Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit attached to the Complaint is fatally defective because it lacks the required statutory language under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2). A Notice to Pay or Quit cannot be amended. The Court of Appeal held that when a plaintiff fails to strictly comply with the requirement under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2), a plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer. (Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025) 112 Cal.App. 5th 433, 457-459.)

As possession of the property is no longer at issue, the Court finds the Defendant is the prevailing party in this matter. The Court orders the Court Clerk to seal the record as the Defendant is the prevailing party in this matter.

The Defendant is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.

12 30-2026-01575211 Motion to Dismiss Main Street The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ROA Management, Inc vs. 19) Rios A Motion to Dismiss is an improper responsive pleading after service of a complaint in an unlawful detainer action. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1170(a), the Defendant needs to file a motion to quash service of summons, a motion to strike, a demurrer to the complaint, or an answer.

The Defendant did not allege defective service of summons in the Motion to Dismiss and failed to file a Motion to Quash service within the statutory period. The Defendant filed this Motion on June 17, 2026 and chose to calendar it for August 28, 2026, more than 2 months after filing it and well outside the statutory time period for unlawful detainers. Furthermore, Defendant does not allege that the Complaint is not facially sufficient for an unlawful detainer complaint. Defendant's sole contention for the basis to dismiss the complaint is that Defendant has experienced economic hardship and would like to remain in the property.

The Court DENIES the Motion to Dismiss.