Prime/South Coast Holding, LLC vs. West

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.