South Spinnaker, LLC vs. Carter

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.