DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CV181561·alameda·Civil·Commercial Unlawful Detainer
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED

HPN 2300 WEBSTER, LLC vs KESOS LLC, DBA MALIBU’S BURGER

Motion to Strike Answer

Hearing date
Jun 11, 2026
Department
511
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Strike rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffHPN 2300 WEBSTER, LLC
DefendantKESOS LLC, DBA MALIBU’S BURGER

Ruling

26CV181561: HPN 2300 WEBSTER, LLC vs KESOS LLC, DBA MALIBU'S BURGER 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Motion to Strike Answer of Darren Preston on Behalf of Defendant Kesos, LLC dba Malibu's Burgers; filed by HPN 2300 Webster, LLC (Plaintiff) CRS# 231821223516 in Department 511

Tentative Ruling - 06/09/2026 Lupe Garcia

The Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer filed by HPN 2300 Webster, LLC on 05/08/2026 is Granted.

NOTICE: All attorneys and unrepresented parties who contest the tentative ruling and request an opportunity to present their arguments at the hearing must notify all other parties of their intention to appear by telephone or in person no later than the day before the hearing, by 4:00 p.m. PT. Parties and attorneys must also formally indicate their objection on eCourt and by sending an email message to the Department 511 clerk at Dept511@alameda.courts.ca.gov. The parties and attorneys must clearly indicate in their email messages the name of the case and the case number. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the Court if the Court has not directed oral argument by its tentative ruling and notice of a party’s intent to appear is not received by the deadline. See California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1) and Alameda County Superior Court Local Rule 3.30(d).

The motion of Plaintiff HPN 2300 Webster, LLC to strike the Answer of Defendant Kesos, LLC (dba Malibu’s Burgers), pursuant to CCP §§ 435 and 436, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff filed its Complaint for commercial unlawful detainer against Defendant on April 13, 2026. The rental property is located at 326 23rd Street, Unit D, in Oakland. On April 29, 2026, the Answer of Defendant Kesos, LLC was filed and served by its officer, Darren Joel Preston. Plaintiff timely filed and serve its motion to strike the Answer on May 8, 2026.

Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Defendant’s Answer is not drawn in conformity with the laws of California. See CCP § 436(b). Defendant Kesos, LLC, a limited liability company, must be represented in this action by an attorney licensed to practice in California. See Merco Const. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 729; and PacLink Communications Internat., Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 958, 963. Plaintiff’s request that the Court take judicial notice of Defendant’s status as a limited liability company is GRANTED.

The Court will prepare the order. The court clerk will mail the order to the parties. Plaintiff’s attorney shall file and serve the notice of entry of order no later than June 16, 2026. Counsel shall serve Defendant at the address on 245 Grand Avenue address in Oakland indicated in the Answer and the address of the rental property on 23rd Street, in Oakland.

Defendant Kesos, LLC shall have ten days after the date of service of the notice of entry of order to file and serve a corrected Answer to Complaint. Plaintiff may file and serve a request for entry of default and default judgment if Defendant Kesos, LLC does not file the corrected Answer. 26CV181561: HPN 2300 WEBSTER, LLC vs KESOS LLC, DBA MALIBU'S BURGER 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Motion to Strike Answer of Darren Preston on Behalf of Defendant Kesos, LLC dba Malibu's Burgers; filed by HPN 2300 Webster, LLC (Plaintiff) CRS# 231821223516 in Department 511

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share