Not of Demurrer and Demurrer to Ud
description
Transcript of Not of Demurrer and Demurrer to Ud
1
NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, SOUTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT
LIMITED JURISDICTION
HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee
Plaintiff, v.
; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
)))))))))))))))))))))
Case No.: (Unlawful Detainer)
NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; AND DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY F. UMBREIT
Filed concurrently with Request for Judicial Notice; [Proposed] Order; and Proof of Service
Hearing Date: December 1, 2009Time: 9:01 A.M.Dept.: LM UD Complaint Filed: November 6, 2009
Related Case: CIV12359
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 1, 2009 at 9:01 A.M. or as soon thereafter as
the matter may be heard in Department LM of the above-referenced Court, located at 400 County
2
NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Center, Redwood City, California 94063, Defendants
will, and hereby do, demur to Plaintiff HSBC BANK USA (“HSBC”) Unlawful Detainer
Complaint on the following grounds:
1. Plaintiff HSBC does not have the legal capacity to sue pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure § 430.10(b).
2. Since Plaintiff lacks standing to commence an unlawful detainer action against
Defendants as it fails the “real party in interest” requirement, “the pleading does not state facts
sufficient to constitute a cause of action” on behalf of the proper specific plaintiff pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(e).
This Demurrer is made pursuant to the provisions of Code Civil Procedure §§ 430.10(b)
and 430.10(e), and is based upon this Notice; the attached memorandum of points and authorities;
declaration of _______________________-in support thereof; the concurrently-filed request for
judicial notice of Defendants’ Complaint court file; the records, files, and pleadings in this action;
and such further evidence and argument the Court may consider at hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED: November 18, 2009
By ______________________________________
i
TABLE OF CONTENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENT
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………..…... ii
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES………………………………………... 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………................................................. 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………... 3
ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………………... 4
I. DEFENDANTS MAY BASE THIS DEMURRER ON THEIR JUDICIALLY-NOTICEABLE WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT.…………………….......................................................................... 4
II. THIS GENERAL DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT MUST BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF LACKS THE CAPACITY TO SUE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 430.10(b)…......................... 4
III. THIS GENERAL DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT MUST BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE THE UD COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 430.10(e)………………………………………………………... 7
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY F. UMBREIT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT........................... 9
[PROPOSED] ORDER– Filed Separately
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER – Filed Separately
PROOF OF SERVICE –Filed Separately
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CALIFORNIA STATUTES:
Civil Code § 2924Civil Code § 2932.5Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(b) Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(e)Code of Civil Procedure § 430.30 Code of Civil Procedure § 430.70Evidence Code § 452 Evidence Code § 453
CASES:
Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311 Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599County of Fresno v. Shelton (App. 5 Dist. 1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 996Parker v. Bowron, (1953) 40 Cal.2d 344W ashington Mutual Bank v. Blechman (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 662
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff’s Complaint provides that Defendants, as trustors, conveyed the subject property
at _______________________________________(the “Property” or “Home”) to a Trustee by a
Deed of Trust executed and recorded in the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office on September
19, 2006 (“Deed of Trust”) to secure payment of said trustors’ Promissory Note. See, Plaintiff’s
Complaint, ¶4(A). Thereafter, as alleged by Plaintiff, the Trustee of said Deed of Trust sold and
conveyed title to the Property to Plaintiff, HSBC, “pursuant to the foreclosure and sale of the
[Property], under the power of sale contained in the Deed of Trust and in compliance with Civil
Code § 2924”. Plaintiff’s Complaint ¶4(B).
On October 21, 2009, Plaintiff caused to be served a written 3/90-Day Notice stating that
Plaintiff had purchased the Property and demanded that all persons vacate the premises.
On November 6, 2009, Defendants filed an action for wrongful foreclosure in San Mateo
Superior Court, Southern Judicial District, Unlimited Jurisdiction, Case No.
CIV______________, naming HSBC as one of the defendants (“Defendants’ Wrongful
Foreclosure Complaint” or “Defendants’ Complaint” or “Defendants’ Verified Complaint”);
attached to the concurrently-filed Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit A). Concurrently with
this Demurrer, and in support thereof, Defendants request this Court to take judicial notice of
Defendants’ Wrongful Foreclosure Complaint pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452 and 453 and
Code of Civil Procedure §§ 430.30 and 430.70.
Defendants’ Verified Complaint includes claims for setting aside the Trustee Sale,
canceling the Trustee’s Deed, Quiet title, and declaratory and injunctive relief, while alleging,
inter alia, the following:
1) On or about September 14, 2006 Defendants entered into a written agreement with
American Mortgage Express, Corp. for the financing of Defendants’ loan for the
purchase of their Home. Defendants for valuable consideration, as borrowers, made,
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
executed, and delivered to American Mortgage Express, Corp. a written promissory
note in the total amount of $960,000.00.
2) To secure payment of the principle sum and interest as provided in the Note and as part
of the same transaction, Defendants, as trustors, executed and delivered to Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as beneficiary, a Deed of Trust dated
September 14, 2006 (the “Deed of Trust”), by the terms of which Plaintiffs, as trustors,
conveyed to Alliance Title of San Mateo, as trustee, the Property. The Deed of Trust
was recorded on September 19, 2006.
3) On or about February 23, 2009, MERS assigned all beneficial interests under the Deed
of Trust to INDYMAC BANK FSB (“INDYMAC”) (hereinafter referred to as the
“Assignment of Deed of Trust”). Although executed in February, 2009, the
Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded only later, on August 26, 2009.
4) On or about March 10, 2009, Defendants INDYMAC and/or REGIONAL SERVICE
CORPORATION and/or LPS DEFAULT and/or LPS AGENCY caused to be recorded
a Notice of Default and Election to Sell on Defendants’ Property. Although
REGIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION claimed to be “either the duly appointed
Trustee, the substitute Trustee or acting as agent for Beneficiary under [the Deed of
Trust]”, no such indication is to be found in the Official Records in the Office of the
Recorder of San Mateo County, California.
5) On or about June 18, 2009, Defendants received a Notice of Trustee Sale from
REGIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION stating that a Trustee Sale of the Property is
set to take place on July 8, 2009. The Trustee Sale was later postponed to September
14, 2009 and a notice thereon was sent to Defendants.
6) On September 14, 2009, REGIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION and/or LPS
DEFAULT and/or LPS AGENCY conducted a Trustee Sale of the Property. The
Property was purportedly sold to HSBC as Trustee for BCAP LLC 2006-AA2 (while
INDYMAC serves as a Servicer of BCAP LLC 2006-AA2), allegedly or presumably,
3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
under the power of sale contained in the aforementioned Deed of Trust. The Trustee’s
Deed Upon Sale of the Property was recorded on October 7, 2009.
7) In their Wrongful Foreclosure Action, Defendants allege, inter alia, violations of
California law and Federal executive orders in improperly holding the sale of
Defendants’ Home and in wrongfully executing, delivering, and recording Trustee’s
Deed on the Property, as set forth below.
On November 6, 2009, concurrently with Plaintiffs’ filing of their Complaint or
immediately thereafter, HSBC, the purported purchaser of the Property in a Trustee Sale, filed this
Unlawful Detainer action (“UD Complaint”) against Defendants.
On or about November 15, 2009, Defendants were served with Plaintiff’s UD Complaint.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
In their UD Complaint, Plaintiff explicitly held itself as an entity qualified to commence
this Unlawful Detainer action against Defendants. Plaintiff’s Complaint ¶1. However, it appears
on the face of the UD Complaint and Defendants’ Verified Complaint, which is judicially-
noticeable by this Court, that:
Plaintiff HSBC is not a real party in interest; Title has not been perfected in Plaintiff since
the title to the Property was not conveyed to Plaintiff under the power of sale contained in the
Deed of Trust and/or was not conveyed in compliance with Civil Code § 2924; Plaintiff HSBC
lacks capacity and standing to sue; and, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to
constitute cause of action on behalf of the proper specific plaintiff, pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure 1 §§ 430.10(b) and 430.10(e).
Therefore, Defendants’ Demurrer must be sustained without leave to amend and Plaintiff’s
Complaint dismissed.
1 Hereinafter referred to as “CCP”.
4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ARGUMENTI
DEFENDANTS MAY BASE THIS DEMURRER ON THEIR JUDICIALLY-NOTICEABLE WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT
CCP § 430.10 provides in pertinent part:
“The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer … as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: … (b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue” (emphasis added).
In turn, CCP § 430.30(a) states:
When any ground for objection to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer appears on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice, the objection on that ground may be taken by a demurrer to the pleading (emphasis added).
A demurrer may challenge the legal sufficiency of an opponent's pleading based on
defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack and/or from matters outside the
pleading that are judicially noticeable. See, Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; County
of Fresno v. Shelton (App. 5 Dist. 1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 996, 1008-1009, as modified.
Concurrently with their Demurrer, Defendants are filing a Request for Judicial Notice of
said Wrongful Foreclosure Complaint pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452 and 453. Under CCP §
430.30, Defendants may base their Demurrer on the judicially-noticed Wrongful Foreclosure
Complaint court file.
IITHIS GENERAL DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT MUST BE SUSTAINED
BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF LACKS THE CAPACITY TO SUE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 430.10(b)
Plaintiff HSBC filed this UD Complaint on or about November 6, 2009, concurrently with
or immediately after Defendants filed their Wrongful Foreclosure Complaint naming HSBC as
defendant. Defendants’ Verified Complaint alleges the following:
5
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INDYMAC (allegedly, HSBC’s predecessor in interest) had no legal capacity to
commence, execute, or cause to be executed a Trustee Sale. As a result of the Office of Thrift
Supervision’s March 19, 2009 Order, which appointed the FDIC as the receiver for INDYMAC,
INDYMAC became an “inactive institution” and no longer in existence on March 19, 2009.
INDYMAC, a defunct corporation, had no authority and legal capacity to initiate a trustee sale as
of March 19, 2009. The only one who had such authority was the receiver, FDIC;
Since INDYMAC was unauthorized to conduct a trustee sale, its purported agents,
REGIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION and/or LPS DEFAULT and/or LPS AGENCY were
unauthorized to do so as well;
Also, INDYMAC issued an unauthorized Notice of Default and Election to Sell as
INDYMAC did so before the Assignment of Deed was duly acknowledged and recorded, as
required by Civil Code § 2932.5;
REGIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION was never dully appointed as a substitute
Trustee and nonetheless acted as such;
INDYMAC, REGIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION, LPS DEFAULT and LPS
AGENCY thus failed to comply with or misrepresented their compliance with the requirements
under Civil Code § 2924 as they were not authorized to conduct a Trustee Sale and unlawfully
issued a Notice of Default and Election to Sell, a prerequisite thereto;
Since the underlying sale was unlawful, the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale delivered to HSBC
is invalid and void. Further, HSBC is still subject to any deficiencies in the underlying Trustee
Sale because HSBC is not a bona fide purchaser, as it was already the beneficial owner of the
underlying obligation, whatever that might be and as such, did not exchange any consideration for
the so called Trustee’s Deed; HSBC did not acquire any interest in the property through a sale; did
not pay fair consideration or for that matter did not pay any consideration; was not a bona fide
purchaser; had, at all times, notice both actual and constructive of defects in the underlying Note,
Deed of Trust and the defects on the on the face of the documents recorded in the public records;
6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
More specifically, HSBC had constructive notice of the defects alleged by Defendants
because the chain of title of the Property in the Official Records in the office of the Recorder of
San Mateo County, California clearly shows that a Notice of Default was recorded before Power
of Sale ever vested in INDYMAC, i.e. before the Assignment of Deed of Trust was “duly
acknowledged and recorded” (Civil Code §2932.5). Further, HSBC as Trustee for BCAP LLC
Trust 2006-AA2 cannot be said to qualify as a bona fide purchaser without notice since
INDYMAC serves as a Servicer of BCAP LLC Trust 2006-AA2, which may indicate that the
transfer of the Property from INDYMAC to HSBC was part of a well calculated scheme between
INDYMAC and HSBC to sanitize the Note. And finally, on January 15, 2009, Defendants,
through counsel, sent INDYMAC a Qualified Written Request (“QWR”) to put them on notice
that Defendants are concerned about their mortgage and believe there may have been, or may be
some discrepancies or violations in the originating, closing, terms or servicing of their Home loan.
Once in receipt of the aforementioned QWR, INDYMAC had an affirmative duty to give notice
to, inter alia, HSBC.
In light of the foregoing in Defendants’ Verified Complaint and attachments thereto, which
are judicially-noticeable, it appears title to the Property was not conveyed to Plaintiff under the
power of sale contained in the Deed of Trust and/or was not conveyed in compliance with Civil
Code § 2924. Thus, title has not been perfected in Plaintiff and Plaintiff is not a real party in
interest.
A plaintiff lacks standing to sue if it not is a real party in interest. See, e.g., W ashington
Mutual Bank v. Blechman (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 662, 669 [citing Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams
(1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1604]. Plaintiff’s lack of legal standing is pertinent to the question
whether Plaintiff’s UD Complaint sufficiently states a cause of action, see infra.
There is a difference between the capacity to sue, which is the right to come into court, and
the standing to sue, which is the right to relief in court (see Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams, id), in the
instant case Plaintiff HSBC also lacks the capacity to sue as HSBC is subject to any deficiencies
7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in the underlying Trustee Sale and its alleged-predecessor in interest, INDYMAC, which similarly
lacks such legal capacity.
Therefore, Plaintiff falls squarely within the objectionable grounds stated in CCP §
430.10(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint cannot stand and must be dismissed.
IIITHIS GENERAL DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT MUST BE SUSTAINED
BECAUSE THE UD COMPLAINT ALSO FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTIONPURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 430.10(e)
CCP § 430.10 provides in pertinent part:
“The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer … to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: … (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action” (emphasis added).
A general demurrer should be sustained if a party is not the proper party to bring suit. See
Parker v. Bowron, (1953) 40 Cal.2d 344, 350-351.
Here, the pleading does not meet the cause of action requirement because plaintiff lacks
standing to sue, as Plaintiff is not a real party in interest (see, supra). This is also why Plaintiff’s
ability to state a claim is stymied.
Therefore, the Court cannot move forward with the merits of the case and Defendants’
Demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
8
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CONCLUSION
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, Defendants respectfully request that this Court
sustain Defendants’ Demurrer without leave to amend.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: November 18, 2009
9DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY F. UMBREIT
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
I, ____________________________, hereby declare the following:
1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice before all of the courts of the State
of California and am an employee of__________________________, attorneys of record for
Defendants ________________________and _________________________________. I have
personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration and if called as a witness, I could and
would testify competently to these matters under oath.
2. Defendants filed an action for wrongful foreclosure in San Mateo Superior Court,
Southern Judicial District, Unlimited Jurisdiction, on November 6, 2009 alleging, inter alia,
violations of California law and Federal executive orders in improperly holding the sale of
Defendants’ Home and in wrongfully executing, delivering, and recording Trustee’s Deed on
Defendants’ Property.
3. On November 6, 2009, concurrently with Defendants’ filing of their Complaint or
immediately thereafter, the purchaser of the Property in the Trustee Sale, HSBC, filed an Unlawful
Detainer action against Plaintiffs in San Mateo Superior Court, Southern Judicial District, Limited
Jurisdiction.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 18, 2009 at Los Angeles, California.
______________________Declarant
PROPOSED ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Attorneys for DefendantsJON JON MANUEL and MARIA VICTORIA MANUEL
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, SOUTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT
LIMITED JURISDICTION
HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee
Plaintiff, v.
; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
)))))))))))))))))))))))
Case No.:
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Date: December 1, 2009Time: 9:01 A.M.Dept: LM
Complaint Filed: November 6, 2009
Related Case: CIV489367 (Unlimited)
PROPOSED ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Defendants Demurrer to the Unlawful Detainer Complaint is hereby sustained without
leave to amend.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
DATE: _________________________ __________________________________
Judge of the Superior Court
- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Attorneys for Defendants
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, SOUTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT
LIMITED JURISDICTION
HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee
Plaintiff, v.
; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Case No.: (Unlawful Detainer)
PROOF OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY F. UMBREIT; [PROPOSED] ORDER; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT; AND EXHIBIT A
Hearing Date: December 1, 2009Time: 9:01 A.M.Dept.: LM UD Complaint Filed: November 6, 2009
Related Case: CIV489367
- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is
On November 18, 2009, I served the following document described as REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE on all interested parties in this action by placing [X] a true copy [ ] the original thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST[ ] (BY FACSIMILE) The facsimile machine I used complied with Rule 2003(3) and no error
was reported by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2008(e)(4), I caused the machine to print a record of the transaction.
[X] (BY MAIL, 1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.)
[ ] I deposited such envelope in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.
[ ] I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, this document will be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on this date with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
[ ] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused the foregoing envelope to be delivered by hand to the addressee on the attached Service List.
[ ] (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS ) I caused the foregoing envelope to be delivered by xxxx FEDEX
[X] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.
[ ] (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made.
Executed on November 18, 2009 at Los Angeles, California.
_______________________________