Demurrer to First Amended Complaint
26CV172224: 6221 HOLLIS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs TELLER, et al. 05/26/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by Pamela Teller (Defendant) + CRS# 839197900673 in Department 518
Tentative Ruling - 05/21/2026 Mark Fickes
The Demurrer filed by Luke Teller, Danielle Teller, Pamela Teller on 04/07/2026 is Sustained without Leave to Amend.
Background
On April 22, 2026, Plaintiff 6221 Hollis LLC filed a first amended complaint (FAC) against Defendants Pamela Teller, Danielle Teller, and Luke Teller alleging one cause of action for breach of contract related to the premises located at 1420 62nd Street, Emeryville, California 94608 for failure to pay rent. The original complaint in this action was filed on February 25, 2026.
On April 29, 2026, Defendants filed a demurrer claiming that Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because Plaintiff is not a party to the lease agreement and that Plaintiff fails to plead its own performance under the lease in keeping the premises habitable. Alternatively, Defendants ask that this case be stayed since a related unlimited civil action, Bruce Bolinger, et al. v. Wareham Development Corporation, et al. (Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 26CV177462), was filed on March 20, 2026, and is pending.
On May 5, 2026, the hearing for that demurrer occurred in Dept. 511 and the demurrer was overruled by Judge Garcia on procedural grounds as Defendants failed to give Plaintiffs adequate notice of the hearing. (Minute Order, dated 5/05/26.)
Thereafter, the case was reassigned to Judge Fickes in dept. 518 and the demurrer to the FAC was rescheduled to May 26, 2026.
The hearing on the demurrer was reset to May 26, 2026, and notice was sent to the parties by the court. This court can now address the demurrer substantively.
No opposition has been filed.
Legal Standard
A party may demur to a complaint if it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) The court will consider all material facts properly pleaded in the complaint and any matters that may be judicially noticed (§ 430.30(a)), but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Defendants claim that Plaintiff fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action because Plaintiff is not a party to the lease agreement and therefore lacks standing to sue and that Plaintiff fails to plead its own performance under the lease in keeping the premises habitable.
Plaintiff failed to oppose the demurrer. By failing to oppose the demurrer, Plaintiff created an inference that the demurrer is meritorious. (SeeHerzberg v. County of Plumas(2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1,20 [Plaintiffs did not oppose the County's demurrer to this portion of their seventh cause of action Accordingly, we deem plaintiffs to have abandoned the issue.]; see also,Sexton v. Superior Court(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 [noting that The failure to file opposition creates an inference that the motion or demurrer is meritorious.].)
Thus, the Court deems the FAC abandoned due to lack of standing.
Defendants further ask the court to award Defendants their costs of suit and, pursuant to the attorneys fees provision of the Lease (Article 11), their reasonable attorneys fees. However, Defendants have failed to submit a declaration regarding their fees. Further, and more importantly, it seems nonsensical to award Defendants fees under a contract to which Plaintiff is not a party. Defendants may separately file a noticed motion for attorney fees, if desired.
Orders
The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer, without leave to amend, and dismisses this action. The Court declines Defendants current request to award attorney fees.
Defendants Pamela Teller, Danielle Teller, and Luke Teller are ORDERED tosubmita proposed judgment reflecting the dismissal of this action. (Blauser v. Dubin(2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 918.)
---
PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing.
To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:
First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
26CV172224: 6221 HOLLIS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs TELLER, et al. 05/26/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by Pamela Teller (Defendant) + CRS# 839197900673 in Department 518 subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.
Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."
Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person.
For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.
Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room
Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984
Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984
One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)
---
Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)