Defendant’s Demurrer to the Complaint; Application for Order to Serve via Posting
Sims on Saturday, May 16, 2026, at 1:51 PM (ROA 8). Defendants have provided no evidence to rebut the presumption under Evidence Code Section 647 other than their own self-serving statements that they were not personally served and that the documents were left on the doorstep.
The Court DENIES the Defendants' Motion to Quash.
Defendants are ordered to file a responsive pleading within 5 business days.
The Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of the Court’s ruling.
10 30-2026-01571329 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Demurrer to the Posada vs. De La Complaint (ROA 13) and the Complaint (ROA 1). Luz Rivera The Court takes Judicial Notice of the Proof of Service by Posting (ROA 28, 30, 32, & 34) and the Application to Serve Summons by Posting (ROA 11).
The Court did not sign an order to serve summons by posting in this matter. Service of the Summons is not proper as there is no Court order to serve by posting and mailing in this matter.
The Application to Serve Summons by Posting is defective because it lacked a separate due diligence statement for each defendant, signed by the declarant. The Court DENIES without prejudice the Application for Order to Serve via Posting.
The Court OVERRULES the Demurrer but finds that service of the Complaint was improper.
Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Summons and Complaint in compliance with the California Code of Civil Procedure. Once the Defendants are served with the Summons and Complaint, Defendants have 10 calendar days to file a responsive pleading.
The Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling.
11 30-2026-01571601 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Demurrer to the Anaheim Complaint (ROA 12), the Complaint (ROA 2) and Plaintiff’s Opposition Multifamily LLC vs. (ROA 20). Gutierrez The Court OVERRULES the Demurrer. The Defendant is ordered to file an Answer within 5 business days.
The Plaintiff is ordered to serve notice of the Court’s ruling.
12 30-2026-01567675 The Court has read and considered the Defendant’s Demurrer to the Catherine S. Burnett Complaint (ROA 19) and the Complaint (ROA 2). As Trustee Of The Estela Gomez Trust A demurrer to a complaint challenges the complaint's facial sufficiency and vs. Romo that of its attachments to the complaint's four corners only. Defendant raises issues of ownership, the ability to sue, and the facts surrounding how the
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?”