The Regents for The University of California vs. Normoxi LLC

Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR C61 HON. JENNIFER M. MCCARTNEY

Date: 09/04/2026 Courtroom Rules and Notices

The Court will continue to upload tentative rulings as they are completed. Please be sure to keep checking until 8:30 AM on the day of your hearing.

Written responses, oppositions, or filings that are filed later than 12:15 PM the day before the hearing on the motion will go on second call by the Court for the Court to have an opportunity to review any lastminute filings. If a party files a written response, opposition, or any filing after 12:15 PM on the day before the hearing, the party must ensure they are available for the Court's afternoon calendar the day of the hearing.

Submitting on tentative rulings: If all counsel/parties intend to submit on the tentative ruling and do not desire oral argument, please advise the Courtroom Clerk or Courtroom Attendant by calling (657) 622-5261 – both counsel need to state they are submitting on the tentative. Please do not call the Department unless all parties submit to the tentative ruling. If all sides submit on the tentative ruling and so advise the Court, the tentative ruling shall become the Court’s final ruling, and the prevailing party shall give notice of the ruling and prepare an order for the Court’s signature if appropriate under Cal. R. Ct. 3.1312.

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 1 30-2026-01582469 The Court has read and considered Judith Boston’s Demurrer to Complaint The Regents for The (ROA 12), the Complaint (ROA 2) and the Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 23). University of California vs. Normoxi The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Request for Entry of Default (ROA LLC 21).

The California Supreme Court has held that, in the context of a residential tenancy, removal of an unnamed occupant from the premises without notice and an opportunity for a pre-eviction hearing violates the occupant’s procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7, subdivision (a) of the California Constitution. (Arrieta v. Mahon (1982) 31 Cal.3d 381, 389–393.) The Arrieta decision specifically addressed residential housing, reasoning that due process protections are implicated when an individual may be deprived of his or her home without notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The Court finds that Judith Boston is not an unnamed occupant of the premises within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure sections 415.46, 1174.25, or 1174.3, or as contemplated by Arrieta v. Mahon, supra, 31 Cal.3d 381. Boston is the founder of Normoxi, LLC, the defendant in this action, and signed the subject sublease in her capacity as the company’s founder. Her

status as the individual who executed the sublease on behalf of Normoxi does not, by itself, establish an independent, prejudgment claim to possession of the premises. Nor may Boston appear in propria persona to assert on behalf of Normoxi the company’s contractual defenses to the unlawful detainer action. California law requires corporations, limited liability companies, and other artificial entities to appear in civil proceedings through licensed counsel. (See Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724; Ziegler v. Nickel (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 545, 547–549.) Accordingly, Normoxi’s rights and defenses under the subject sublease must be asserted through counsel authorized to represent the entity.

As Plaintiff correctly observes, “Normoxi is a separate legal entity that must appear through licensed counsel, Boston cannot circumvent that requirement by adding herself individually as a defendant and then asserting Normoxi's contractual defenses in her own name.”

Accordingly, the Court orders the Prejudgment Claim to Right of Possession filed by Judith Boston STRICKEN. The Demurrer is ordered off calendar.

Normoxi LLC’s default was entered by the Court Clerk on 8/31/2026.

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

2 30-2026-01589059 The Court has read and considered the Defendants' Demurrer to the Prime/South Coast Complaint for Unlawful Detainer (ROA 14), the Complaint (ROA 2) and the Holding, LLC vs. Plaintiff’s Opposition (ROA 19). West The Court OVERRULES the Demurrer. The Defendants are to file an Answer within 5 calendar days.

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

3 30-2026-01589203 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Demurrer to Complaint Sequoia Equities - (ROA 16), Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice (ROA 19) and the Hidden Hills vs. Complaint (ROA 2). Gabroy The Court DENIES the request for Judicial Notice as to Exhibits 1–3, as the documents are not proper items for judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452(h). California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1320 states “A party filing a demurrer must serve and file therewith a notice of hearing that must specify a hearing date in accordance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 and, if service is by electronic means, in accordance with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(4) and rule 2.251(h)(2).”

Defendant failed to provide notice and service of the demurrer on the Plaintiff as required under the applicable Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court.

As this was not properly noticed and served, the Demurrer is taken off calendar.