Main Street Management, Inc vs. Rios

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.

As such, the Court orders the Defendant to file an Answer within 3 calendar days.

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

Discovery Motions The Court has read and considered the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Javier Rios (ROA 39), Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Javier Rios (ROA 32), and Motion for Order Deeming Matters Admitted and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Javier Rios (ROA 26).

The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant is hereby ordered to serve full and complete verified responses, without objection to the Request for Interrogatories, within 5 days of service of notice hereto.

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Order Deeming Matters Admitted be and hereby is granted and that the truth of all specified matters, and the genuineness of all specified documents, in the Requests for Admissions, propounded by Plaintiff and served on Defendant on July 2, 2026, be deemed admitted.

The Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents is GRANTED. Defendant is hereby ordered to serve full and complete verified responses, without objection to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, within 5 days of service of notice hereto.

The Court orders Defendant, Javier Rios, to pay sanctions in the amount of $555 to Plaintiff forthwith. This sum shall be made payable to "Law Offices of Sam Chandra, APC" within 5 business days and shall be delivered to 710 S. Myrtle Ave. #600, Monrovia, CA 91016.

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

13 30-2026-01578705 Defendant’s Counsel filed a request to withdraw the Motion for Attorney’s VAOC Newport Plaza, Fees (ROA 35 & 41). LP vs. Tate The Court vacates the hearing dates of August 28, 2026 and September 11, 2026, regarding the respective Motion for Attorney’s Fees.

14 30-2026-01590619 The Court has read and considered the Defendant, Eldiiar Almataev’s Motion Bays Apartments to Strike Complaint (ROA 8) and the Complaint (ROA 2). Newport LLC vs. Almataev The Defendant entitled the Motion a “Motion to Strike” but in the body of the document refers to it as a demurrer, and the proof of service for the Motion says on 8/21/2026 “Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Complaint” was served on the Plaintiff.