Sequoia Equities - Hidden Hills vs. Gabroy

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.

The Court Clerk is to provide notice.

4 30-2026-01590441 The Court has read and considered the Defendants' Demurrer to Amended Nguyen vs. McIntosh Complaint (ROA 11) and the Amended Complaint (ROA 7).

California Civil Code § 1954.535 provides that an owner must provide a tenant subject to an agreement or contract with a government agency with 90 days' written notice of the termination of the contract. This California Civil Code section does not exempt a landlord from the requirements under the Tenant Protection of 2019 if it applies to the tenancy, requiring notice under the just cause provision under Civil Code section 1946.2(b) or the California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161 requirements. The Plaintiff answered 7(b) in the Amended Complaint that the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 applies and that, under 8(a), the tenancy was terminated for at-fault just cause. The 90 Day Notice attached to the Amended Complaint does not meet the legal notice requirements for a just cause termination pursuant to Civil Code § 1946.2(b) or the California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161 requirements.

A Notice to 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, a plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer. (Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025) 112 Cal.App. 5th 433, 457- 459.)

The Court SUSTAINS the Demurrer without leave to amend.

The Court dismisses the complaint with prejudice.

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

6 30-2026-01542413 The Court has read and considered the Defendant Stephanie Martin Christopher Paul Rutledge’s Notice of Motion to Set Aside the June 29, 2026 Default Money Teague as Trustee of Judgment (ROA 70), Declaration in Support (ROA 73), and Reply to Motion the Teague Family (ROA 75). Trust dated August 5, 2010 as restated on The Defendant failed to provide notice and service of the Motion pursuant to August 17, 2018 vs. California Code of Civil Procedure § 1005 on the Plaintiff. No declaration of Rutledge service or proof of service is attached to the Motion to Vacate, Declaration In support or Reply to Motion. The Court of Appeal held that a litigant in propria persona is subject to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney. (Kabbe v. Miller (1990) 226 Cal.App. 3d 93, 98.)

The Court takes the motion off calendar as it was not properly noticed or served.

The Court Clerk is to provide notice of the Court’s ruling. 7 30-2026-01577309 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Yang vs. Byun Judgment (ROA 39). No Opposition was filed by the Plaintiff’s counsel as of 5:36 AM on September 4, 2026.