The Baker's Inc. v. FAS Realty CA1/3

Filed 9/30/13 The Baker‟s Inc. v. FAS Realty CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE BAKER‟S INC., Plaintiff, v. A137347 FAS REALTY, INC., et al., (Alameda County Defendant and Respondents; Super. Ct. No. RG12651118) JOEL BAKER, Appellant.

Joel Baker purports to appeal from an order dismissing an unlawful detainer complaint filed by plaintiff The Baker‟s Inc. Baker is not a party to the action below but nevertheless claims he has standing to appeal as an aggrieved party. We dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In October 2012, plaintiff The Baker‟s Inc. filed an unlawful detainer complaint against FAS Realty, Inc. and Francis Menh Ho (collectively “FAS”) seeking to recover possession of property located at 1222 Russell Street in Berkeley (the “Russell Street property”). Appellant Joel Baker filed the complaint on behalf of The Baker‟s Inc. Baker is not an attorney. According to the complaint, The Baker‟s Inc. is the current owner of the Russell Street property. Baker is described as the former owner of the Russell Street property

1

who is now the “caretaker” of the property for The Baker‟s Inc. As set forth in the complaint, the Russell Street property was allegedly sold in a nonjudicial foreclosure sale to FAS in 2011. The Baker‟s Inc. claims the foreclosure sale is void because the foreclosure trustee mistakenly assumed that Baker was the property owner and consequently failed to serve the current owner, The Baker‟s Inc., with notice of the nonjudicial foreclosure. The Baker‟s Inc. sought to regain possession of the Russell Street property and to evict FAS. FAS filed a demurrer and motion to strike the complaint. FAS contended the complaint should be stricken because a corporation cannot file an action in propria persona or be represented by a person who is not a licensed attorney. FAS also argued that the complaint fails to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer because The Baker‟s Inc. is not the current owner of the Russell Street property. As support for its contention, FAS referred to the trustee‟s deed attached to the complaint showing that legal title to the property was conveyed to FAS in 2011. FAS argued that an unlawful detainer lawsuit is not the proper vehicle to challenge title to a property. As reflected in the papers supporting the demurrer and motion to strike, Baker filed a separate lawsuit against FAS claiming the foreclosure was improper and seeking to set aside the trustee‟s sale to FAS. FAS sought judicial notice of a 2010 notice of default with respect to the Russell Street property, a 2011 notice of trustee‟s sale in which Baker was identified as the trustor, the trustee‟s deed reflecting sale of the Russell Street property to FAS in May 2011, and an order sustaining a demurrer to Baker‟s separate lawsuit against FAS challenging the foreclosure sale. The Baker‟s Inc. did not file any opposition to the demurrer. The trial court granted FAS‟s requests for judicial notice and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The court‟s order states that the documents subject to judicial notice demonstrate that Baker previously owned the Russell Street property and that FAS purchased the property at a trustee‟s sale. As set forth in the court‟s order, “Plaintiff The Baker‟s Inc. is not the owner of the property and cannot state a claim for unlawful detainer.” The court‟s order further states a corporation must be represented by counsel. The court