Leanna Roberts

1 In Pro Pria Persona

2701 E. Highway 132 (Space #46)
2 Vernalis, CA 95385
Telephone: (971) 332-2848
3
leannajean8113@gmail.com
4
Defendant
5

6
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
8
132 Investments, LLC,
CASE NO. MAN-CV-LUDR-2023-
9 Plaintiffs,
0009529
10 vs. NOTICE OF MOTION TO
11 VACATE DEFAULT JUDGEMENT
LEANNA ROBERTS, and DOES 1
REQUEST ON PLAINTIFF’S
THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
12 UNLAWFUL DETAINER
Defendants. COMPLAINT
13
Potential Dates: December 20, 2023
14
December 21, 2023
15 December 22, 2023

16 Time:
Dept.:
17
Assigned to:
18

19 Action Filed: August 31, 2023

20

21 TO PLAINTIFF AND PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL OF RECORD:

22 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE on _____________________, at ________, or as soon after

23 that as the matter can be heard, in Dept. _______of the above-entitled Court located at

24 ____________________________________________,

25 Defendant,____________________ will move the Court to set aside the Default that was

26 entered against her on ___________________ , the Judgment that was entered against her on

27 ________, and granting her leave to file her Proposed Answer, a copy of which is attached as

28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF HEARING & DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT - 1
 1 Exhibit "A" to the Declaration of ______________________. The Motion will be made

2 under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section 473.5 on the grounds that the Default

3 and Default Judgment were taken against Defendant due to her lack of actual notice in time to

4 defend the action as more fully set forth in the Declaration of ________________________,

5 and the Exhibits attached thereto, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

6 The Motion shall be based upon this notice, the attached Points and Authorities

7 in support thereof, the files and records of this case, and the Declaration of

8 __________________, and the Exhibits attached thereto, attached hereto, and on such other and

9 further oral and/or documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing on this Motion.

10
DATED: December 6, 2023 By:_______________________
11 LEANNA ROBERTS
Defendant
12 In Pro Per
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF HEARING & DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT - 2
 Leanna Roberts
1 In Pro Pria Persona
2701 E. Highway 132 (Space #46)
2 Vernalis, CA 95385
Telephone: (971) 332-2848
3
leannajean8113@gmail.com
4
Defendant
5 LEANNA ROBERTS
6

7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN

9 132 Investments, LLC,

CASE NO. MAN-CV-LUDR-2023-
Plaintiffs,
10 0009529
vs. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
11
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
LEANNA ROBERTS, and DOES 1
12 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT
13 Defendants. REQUEST IN UNLAWFUL
DETAINER COMPLAINT
14

15 Potential Dates: December 20, 2023

December 21, 2023
16 December 22, 2023
Time:
17 Dept.:
18
Assigned to:
19
Action Filed: August 31, 2023
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES - 3
 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

3
I. INTRODUCTION
4
This Motion to Vacate Judgment is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
5
(CCP)1 section 473.5 on the grounds that the Defendant lacked actual notice of the Unlawful
6
Detainer Complaint and Summons in time to respond to the Unlawful Detainer action.
7

8
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
9

10 Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants on or about ___________ alleging: Add some

11 brief facts regarding the lawsuit such as breach of contract, et. See Plaintiffs complaint on file.

12 Default was entered against Defendant on _______________. A Default Judgment

13 was entered against Defendant on _______________. Put in the dates for each one, you can get

14 the dates from the Court clerk.

15 Defendant alleges that she only heard about the complaint sometime in late January of

16 _________ when the receptionist at her office informed her that someone had left a copy at the

17 front desk. After the receptionist gave her the paperwork that had been left at the front desk,

18 Defendant briefly reviewed the complaint, and then set the paperwork aside with the intention

19 of contacting an attorney to discuss the complaint. However, Defendant was unable to find the

20 paperwork when she looked for it again, and did not find it again until the last week of April,

21 ______.

22 When Defendant, _________________ researched the case on the Court’s website on or

23 about ______________, she discovered that Default had been entered against Defendant on

24 ______________, and a Judgment had been entered on ___________________________.

25 See the Declaration of _______________________ and Exhibits attached thereto filed

26 and served concurrently and incorporated herein by reference.

27
1
All further statutory references are to California codes unless otherwise indicated.
28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES - 4
 1 III. ARGUMENT

2 a. Authority for Motion to Vacate

3
This Demurrer is made pursuant to section 430.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure
4
(CCP), which provides in pertinent part:
5 “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may
object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on
6
any one or more of the following grounds: . . .
7 (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.”
8
CCP section 430.30, subdivision (a) states, in part, that “when any ground for objection
9
to a complaint . . . appears on the face thereof . . . the objection on that ground may be taken by
10
a demurrer to the pleading.” CCP section 430.50, subdivision (a) provides that the demurrer
11
may be taken to the complaint as a whole, or to “any of the causes of action stated therein.”
12
In reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint against a demurrer, the court ordinarily
13
accepts the allegations of the Complaint as true. (Vance v. Villa Park Mobilehome Estates
14
(1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 698, 709 (citing 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Pleading, §
15
896, p. 337.)) A demurrer is limited to allegations on the face of the pleading and any properly
16
judicially noticed matter. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30(a).) When any ground for objection to a
17
complaint appears on the face of the complaint, the objection on that ground may be taken by a
18
demurrer to the pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30(a).) An exhibit to a Complaint is
19
incorporated into that Complaint when it is foundational to the cause of action, attached as an
20
exhibit, and incorporated by proper reference. (Bryne v. Harvey (1962) 211 Cal. App. 2d 92,
21
103.)
22 b. Plaintiff’s Complaint Fails to State a Cause of Action Because the 3-
Day Notice to Quit Failed to Give Sufficient Notice of Termination of Tenancy.
23

24 The Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law provides recreational vehicle owners
25 unique protections against actual or constructive eviction from a Park. Ms. Roberts has resided
26 in the Park from September 30, 2021 (for a period greater than 9 months in the Park) and thus
27 qualifies for the protections under the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law, pursuant to
28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES - 5
 1 Civil Code, § 799.31. For this reason, a Park may not terminate or refuse to renew a tenancy

2 except as specified in Civil Code section § 799.70 and only upon giving at least 60 (sixty) days’

3 notice. (Civil Code, § 799.70(a)). Plaintiff’s 3-Day Notice to Quit failed to provide Defendant

4 Ms. Roberts legally sufficient notice under the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law.

5 California Civil Code sections 779.70 and 779.70(a)) provide the following in pertinent part:
“[The] management may terminate or refuse to renew the right of
6 occupancy of a defaulting resident upon the giving of a written notice to
the defaulting resident in the manner prescribed by Section 1162 of the
7 Code of Civil Procedure to remove the recreational vehicle from the park.
This notice shall provide not less than 60 days’ notice of termination
8
of the right of occupancy and shall specify one of the following reasons
9 for the termination of the right of occupancy:

10 (a) Nonpayment of rent, utilities, or reasonable incidental service

charges; provided, that the amount due has been unpaid for a period of
11 five days from its due date, and provided that the resident shall be given a
12 three-day written notice subsequent to that five-day period to pay the total
amount due or to vacate the park. For purposes of this subdivision, the
13 five-day period does not include the date the payment is due. The three-
day notice shall be given to the resident in the manner prescribed by
14 Section 1162 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The three-day notice may
be given at the same time as the 60-day notice required for
15 termination of the right of occupancy; provided, however, that any
16 payment of the total charges due, prior to the expiration of the three-day
period, shall cure any default of the resident. In the event the resident does
17 not pay prior to the expiration of the three-day notice period, the resident
shall remain liable for all payments due up until the time the tenancy is
18 vacated.” [Emphasis added]
19
The Notice purported to give Defendant Ms. Roberts a mere 3 (three) days to vacate the
20
premises instead of the 60 (sixty) days required for recreational vehicle tenancies under section
21
799.70(a) of the Civil Code. Under the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law, Defendant
22
Ms. Roberts was never provided sufficient notice of management’s intention to terminate her
23
tenancy.
24
A notice is valid and enforceable only if “the lessor strictly complies with the statutorily
25
mandated notice requirements.” (Bevill v. Zoura (1994) 27 Cal. App. 4th 694, 697 (citing Kwok
26
v. Bergren (1982) 130 Cal. App. 3d 596.)) Because the Notice does not strictly comply with all
27
of the statutory requirements of the Recreational Vehicle Park Occupancy Law, it is invalid and
28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES - 6
 1 cannot be used to enforce the filed unlawful detainer Complaint. Because the Complaint fails to

2 attach a valid notice, the Complaint fails to assert facts sufficient to state the cause of action and

3 the demurrer must be sustained without leave to amend.

4 IV. CONCLUSION

5 Because the Complaint lacks the essential facts necessary to state a cause of action,

6 Defendant Leanna Roberts respectfully requests that the vacate the default judgment request by

7 Plaintiffs without leave to amend.

9
DATED: December 6, 2023 By: ________________________
10 Leanna Roberts
11 In Pro Per
DEFENDANT
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES - 7
 Leanna Roberts
1 In Pro Pria Persona
2701 E. Highway 132 (Space #46)
2 Vernalis, CA 95385
Telephone: (971) 332-2848
3
leannajean8113@gmail.com
4
DEFENDANT
5
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
6
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
7

8 132 Investments, LLC,

CASE NO. MAN-CV-LUDR-2023-
Plaintiffs,
9 0009529
vs. [PROPOSED] ORDER
10 SUSTAINING DEFENDANT’S
LEANNA ROBERTS, and DOES 1
11 MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT
THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
JUDGMENT REQUEST IN
12 Defendants. UNLAWFUL DETAINER
COMPLAINT
13
Potential Dates: December 20, 2023
14
December 21, 2023
15 December 22, 2023
Time:
16 Dept.:

17 Assigned to:
18

19
THIS MATTER COMING BEFORE THE COURT this date. The Court having reviewed the
20
Motion and Points and Authorities and having heard arguments on this matter, orders the
21
Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Unlawful Detainer Complaint filed August 31, 2023 is sustained without
22
leave to amend.
23

24
IT IS ORDERED that:
25
1. Demurrer to the Unlawful Detainer Complaint is sustained without leave to amend
26
because it fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against
27
Defendant Leanna Roberts pursuant to California Civil Code §799.70 (a).
28 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[PROPOSED] ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT - 8
 1 ///

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
DATED: By: _______________________
7
Judge of the Superior Court
8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[PROPOSED] ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT - 9