Pahu vs. Crawford

In compliance with the Order Granting Motion for Relief from Stay Under 11 U.S.C. §362 in Case # 8:26-bk-12287-MH the Court will not issue a monetary judgment. The Court orders the lease is forfeited. The judgment applies to all unknown occupants under CCP §415.46. A writ of possession shall issue forthwith.

Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to prepare a judgment consistent with the Court’s order and file it with the Court by close of business today.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of entry of judgment.

The Court vacates the pretrial conference and jury trial dates in light of the ruling on the motion for summary judgment.

8 30-2026-01564533 The Court vacates the 8/14/2026 order which states “This matter is referred to Cooper Fellowship, Department C23 for review and reassignment based on Notice of Related Inc. v. Bonner Case, filing, under primary case number 30-2026-01545367, Cooper Fellowship, Inc., a California Non-profit religious corporation vs. Lengyel- Leahu.”

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(B) provides “Where the cases listed in the notice include both unlimited and limited civil cases, the judge who has the earliest filed unlimited case must determine whether the cases should be ordered related and assigned to his or her department.” Notice of Related Case indicates that 30-2026-01545367 is the unlimited case with the earliest filing. A review of the Court Docket in 30-2026-01545367 fails to show that there has been a Notice of Related Case filed in that matter.

As Judge Fish is the judicial officer who will need to determine if the matters are related and if assignment to C11 is warranted in this matter. The Court continues this matter to September 23, 2026, at 8:30 AM for Review Hearing on the status of the Related Case Request that needs to be filed in Judge Fish’s matter. The Motion for Summary Judgment remains trailing after the Review Hearing.

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

11 30-2026-01567683 The Court takes Judicial Notice of related matter 30-2026-01566561-CU-OR- Tran v. Kim CJC before Judge Lee Gabriel. On 8/25/2026 the Motion to Consolidate the matters was granted by Judge Gabriel. As reflected on the 8/25/2026 Minute Order (ROA 86 on 30-2026-01566561-CU-OR- CJC) “The Court orders the following cases consolidated for all purposes: 30-2026-01566561-CU-OR- CJC Kim vs. Tran and 30-2026-01567683-CL-UD-CJC Tran vs. Kim. The Court designates 30-2026-01566561-CU-OR-CJC Kim vs. Tran as the lead case and all further documents must be filed under the case number and caption of the lead case.” All future hearings and orders on this matter will be heard in Department C32.

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).