Leon Shu Yau As Trustee Of The Leon Shu Yao & Kieu Hue Ly Revocable Trust vs. Young

The Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion to Strike the request for attorney’s fees as an improper damages request. The Court OVERRULES the Demurrer.

The Defendant is ordered to file an Answer within 5 calendar days.

The Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling. 15 30-2026-01582151 Motion to Dismiss is off calendar. Motion was ruled on 8/5/2026 by the 12575 9th Street, L P. Court. Court trial is set for 9/8/2026 at 8:30 AM. vs. Flores 16 30-2026-01587925 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Demurrer (ROA 19), the The Irvine Company Complaint (ROA 2), and the Proofs of Service of Summons (ROA 8, 10, & LLC vs. Odooli 12).

The Court OVERRULES the Demurrer. The Defendants are ordered to file an Answer within 5 calendar days.

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

17 30-2026-01589113 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Demurrer to Complaint South Spinnaker, LLC (ROA 10) and the Complaint (ROA 2). vs. Carter The Court SUSTAINS the Demurrer with leave to amend on the grounds that the Plaintiff or its agent signs no verification. Plaintiff’s counsel signs page 4 of the UD-100 form, but the signature line for Plaintiff is blank; and page 9 of ROA 2, entitled “Verification,” lists Alicia Garrett as the property manager, but the signature line is also blank. Plaintiff is ordered to file an amended complaint within 5 business days.

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

18 30-2026-01569741 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Demurrer to the Revxpros, Inc. vs. Complaint (ROA 26) and the Complaint (ROA 2). Hassas When a party files a demurrer, the Court looks at the facial sufficiency of the complaint and attachments only and cannot consider extrinsic evidence. The Court must assume that the statements contained within the Complaint are true in determining facial sufficiency. As such, the Court OVERRULES the Defendant’s demurrer.

The Defendant is ordered to file an Answer within 5 calendar days.

The Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s ruling. 20 30-2026-01583181 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ROA Leon Shu Yau As 10). Trustee Of The Leon Shu Yao & Kieu Hue The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Complaint (ROA 2) and Proof of Ly Revocable Trust Service of Summons (ROA 7). vs. Young 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 time period.

As the Defendant essentially argues the Motion to Dismiss as a Demurrer to the Complaint by arguing the Plaintiff failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and on its face is defective, the Court deems the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss a Demurrer to the Complaint and will rule based on the filing.

The Court in Walters v. Meyers (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d Supp. 15, 20 held “that service of the three-day notice by posting and mailing is effective on the date the notice is posted and mailed.” Here, the Complaint, the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit, and the Proof of Service for the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit show that service was effectuated by posting and mailing on June 25, 2026. The end of day on June 30, 2026, marks the end of the 3-day period. The Complaint in this matter was filed with the Court on July 1, 2026. The Complaint is facially sufficient to state a cause of action for an unlawful detainer. Therefore, the Court OVERRULES the Demurrer.

Defendant is ordered to file an Answer within 5 calendar days.

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