arrow left
arrow right
  • Yen VS Mosser Civil Unlimited (Other Real Property (not emin...) document preview
  • Yen VS Mosser Civil Unlimited (Other Real Property (not emin...) document preview
  • Yen VS Mosser Civil Unlimited (Other Real Property (not emin...) document preview
  • Yen VS Mosser Civil Unlimited (Other Real Property (not emin...) document preview
  • Yen VS Mosser Civil Unlimited (Other Real Property (not emin...) document preview
  • Yen VS Mosser Civil Unlimited (Other Real Property (not emin...) document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                ONAL
                                                      734345
                                                               pre




                 ALAMEDA               COUNTY
                             SEP 22 2021
                           OF.         PERIOR COURT
                By|                          Deputy




)F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

TE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA



       CASE NO. RG21-100261
ialf
ed,    DEFENDANT CONSERVICE, LLC’S
       DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
       AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

       Date:          October 22, 2021
       Time:          10:00 a.m.
       Dept.:         21

       Reservation #:            R-2294551

TE;    FAC Filed:                  June 28, 2021
       Complaint Filed:            May 28, 2021
       Trial Date:                 Not Yet Set



1




: section 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f), Defendant

y demurs generally and specially to Plaintiffs

4 BLANCO, and MELINA TESSIER’s (“Plaintiffs”)

AC”) on the following grounds:
|-
RER TO FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT —
E NO. RG21-100261
®

itiffs’ FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute

kland’s Rent Adjustment Ordinance.” (Code Civ. Proc.

ion fails because (1) Plaintiffs fail to plead facts

ice violated Oakland Rent Adjustment Board

ance does not authorize private suits to enforce Oakland

‘ause Conservice is not a party to the contracts at issue,

2ory of liability. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ First Cause of

on prohibiting landlord defendant from continuing to
ation of Oakland’s Rent Adjustment Ordinance” is



aintiffs’ FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a

kland’s Tenant Protection Ordinance.” (Code Civ. Proc.

facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for

Ordinance.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).)

ise (1) Plaintiffs fail to plead facts sufficient to constitute

ent Adjustment Board regulations, (2) the Tenant

vate suits to enforce Oakland Rent Adjustment Board

the contracts at issue, and (4) Plaintiffs do not allege

>Iaintiffs’ Second Cause of Action, including the claim

ging, or aiding or inciting the charging, of unmetered

al fees not attributable to a specific rental unit for any

1ent Ordinance” is uncertain, (Code Civ. Proc. §



intiffs’ FAC fails to state facts sufficient to constitute

npetition Law, Bus. & Prof Code § 17200 et seq.”

, this cause of action fails because (1) Plaintiffs fail to

rat Conservice violated Oakland Rent Adjustment Board

the contracts at issue, and (3) Plaintiffs do not allege
)-

RER TO FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT -
2 NO. RG21-100261
>laintiffs’ Third Cause of Action,   including the claim

1, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and any other

 Proc. § 430.10(£).)


AYES SCOTT BONINO ELLINGSON
JSLANI SIMONSON & CLAUSE, LLP



     SfEPHEN      COTT
                             fllp-
     JESSICA E. SCOTT
     Attorneys for Defendant
     CONSERVICE,       LLC




i=

tER TO FIRST AMENDED           CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT -
» NO. RG21-100261