CASE NAME: Thomas J Hunter, et al. v. Bradford Thomas Romano, et al
CASE NO.: 20SMCV00723
MOTION: Motion to Stay/Dismiss
Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint
HEARING DATE: 7/23/2020
Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss or stay this action for two reasons. First, Defendants argue that the Court determined this matter to be an “eviction case,” and due to the moratorium on evictions, the case must be dismissed. Second, Defendants argue that they are entitled to a stay based on due process protections under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Defendants request judicial notice of Exhibits A – D. Exhibits A – C are executive actions and are judicially noticeable. Exhibit D is this Court’s minute order of July 1, 2020, which is judicially noticeable as a court record, but not for the truth of its contents. (See In re Vicks (2013) 56 Cal.4th 274, 314.)
ANALYSIS
At the outset, the Court’s characterization of this matter as an “evic
Hearing Date
July 23, 2020
Type
Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
CASE NAME: Thomas J Hunter, et al. v. Bradford Thomas Romano, et al
CASE NO.: 20SMCV00723
MOTION: Motion to Stay/Dismiss
Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint
HEARING DATE: 7/23/2020
Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss or stay this action for two reasons. First, Defendants argue that the Court determined this matter to be an “eviction case,” and due to the moratorium on evictions, the case must be dismissed. Second, Defendants argue that they are entitled to a stay based on due process protections under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Defendants request judicial notice of Exhibits A – D. Exhibits A – C are executive actions and are judicially noticeable. Exhibit D is this Court’s minute order of July 1, 2020, which is judicially noticeable as a court record, but not for the truth of its contents. (See In re Vicks (2013) 56 Cal.4th 274, 314.)
ANALYSIS
At the outset, the Court’s characterization of this matter as an “evic