BLUE WINDOW, LLC VS. REAL AUDITORY AUDITORY DISPLAY AUGMENTATION DEVICES, INC, ET AL

9/11/2026 – Law and Motion Calendar Judge: Honorable Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 37 of 38

2:00 PM LINE: 2 26-UDU-00847 BLUE WINDOW, LLC VS. REAL AUDITORY AUDITORY DISPLAY AUGMENTATION DEVICES, INC, ET AL

BLUE WINDOW, LLC DEAN C. ROSSI REAL AUDITORY AUDITORY DISPLAY AUGMENTATION DEVICES, INC ANTONY D NASH

PLAINTIFF BLUE WINDOW, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ITS UNLAWFUL DETAINER CAUSE OF ACTION AND IMMEDIATE RIGHT TO POSSESSION

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff Blue Window, LLC's Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED as to its immediate right to possession against Defendant Real Auditory Display Augmentation Devices, Inc. (“RAD”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (3).

The Court does not rely upon Plaintiff's separate nonpayment theory under section 1161, subdivision (2).

Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to the existence and contents of the court records, but not as to the truth of disputed factual matters contained therein. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

A valid statutory notice is a prerequisite to unlawful detainer, and the statutory notice requirements are strictly construed. (Eshagian v. Cepeda (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 433, 457–459; City of Alameda v. Sheehan (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 68, 75.) Plaintiff's Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit does not satisfy Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (2), because it does not state the telephone number of the person to whom the rent payment is to be made. Accordingly, the Court does not grant summary adjudication on Plaintiff's nonpayment theory.

Plaintiff has, however, established its independent right to possession under section 1161, subdivision (3). Article 14 of the Lease prohibits RAD from subleasing or permitting third-party occupancy without Plaintiff's prior written consent. The Three-Day Notice to Perform Covenant or Quit specifically identified the unauthorized occupancy at 2608 Spring Street and required RAD, within the statutory period, to remove the unauthorized occupant, cease the unapproved occupancy arrangement, provide the required information concerning that arrangement, or surrender possession. The undisputed evidence establishes that Tyrants Volleyball LLC occupied a portion of the premises pursuant to its arrangement with RAD without Plaintiff's written consent and that RAD did not timely cure the violation or surrender possession.

RAD's prior representation that it had physically vacated does not establish a surrender of its tenancy or possessory rights. RAD requested documentation that would surrender possession and authorize Plaintiff to re-enter and relet the premises, but did not execute it. There is no evidence that RAD otherwise renounced its

9/11/2026 – Law and Motion Calendar Judge: Honorable Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 38 of 38

possessory rights or relinquished its rights with respect to its subtenant before this action was commenced. (See Briggs v. Electronic Memories & Magnetics Corp. (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 900, 904–906.)

The Court's ruling is limited to RAD. Although the proof concerning service of the statutory notices on Tyrants does not establish compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1162, subdivision (b)(3), that does not preclude relief against RAD where RAD remained in possession through its subtenant. (Markham v. Fralick (1934) 2 Cal.2d 221, 223–225; Chinese Hospital Foundation Fund v. Patterson (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 627, 632.) The Court therefore does not adjudicate the sufficiency of statutory notice or service as to Tyrants.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to immediate possession of the premises as against RAD. Plaintiff may submit a possession-only judgment and writ of possession consistent with this ruling. Plaintiff's claims for unpaid rent, holdover damages, and other monetary relief are not adjudicated and remain pending for subsequent determination. (Northrop Corp. v. Chaparral Energy, Inc. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 725, 729–730.)

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order and possession-only judgment consistent with this ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action. The Court directs the parties to San Mateo County Superior Court Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) regarding the wording of proposed orders.

Posted: 3:00 P.M.