Defendants Sandi Aldrich, Thomas Aldrich, and Vanessa Apodaca’s demurrer to the complaint
based on the ground that the three-day notice to pay or quit is invalid is OVERRULED. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 1161(2).) Defendants contend that the notice does not include all of the information
required by section 1161(2), but fail to identify in their moving papers what that information is. The
Court does not find that any information required from the statute is missing from the notice.
Defendants cite no authority holding that the designation of the name of the entity to whom
payment may be made renders the notice invalid.
If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant
to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.
Hearing Date
January 26, 2017
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Defendants Sandi Aldrich, Thomas Aldrich, and Vanessa Apodaca’s demurrer to the complaint
based on the ground that the three-day notice to pay or quit is invalid is OVERRULED. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 1161(2).) Defendants contend that the notice does not include all of the information
required by section 1161(2), but fail to identify in their moving papers what that information is. The
Court does not find that any information required from the statute is missing from the notice.
Defendants cite no authority holding that the designation of the name of the entity to whom
payment may be made renders the notice invalid.
If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant
to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.