Real Property Law
CALIFORNIA CASE SUMMARY UPDATE: May 2025 Real Property Case Summaries
May 2025
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Helping Attorneys Get Excellent Results
Publisher: California Case Summaries™: Know More. Win More.
Mediator at ADR Services, Inc.: Business, employment, insurance, probate, real property and torts cases.
To schedule, contact one of Monty’s case managers Haward Cho, haward@adrservices.com, (213) 683-1600, or Rachael Boughan, rboughan@adrservices.com, (619) 233-1323.
Trial Mentoring™: Trial training and preparation.
Trial Alchemy™: Learn from Civil Jury Trial Experts. Available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and YouTube.
California Case Summaries™: California attorneys can win more cases by always knowing the new published civil in their practice areas. California Case Summaries™ makes this easy by providing one-paragraph case summaries, organized by legal topic, of every new civil case published by California courts in monthly issues, quarterly issues, annual issues, or all three. Individual Attorney and Law Firm Unlimited (lets the firm send summaries to every lawyer) subscriptions are available. To subscribe, click here.
Here is the case summary from last month:
CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL
Landlord-Tenant
1215 Fell SF Owner LLC v. Fell Street Automotive Clinic (2025) __ Cal.App.5th __, 2025 WL 1099171: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s orders denying defendants’ motions to vacate eviction judgments and enforcement orders in two related unlawful detainer actions. Defendants sought to vacate the judgments and enforcement orders because plaintiffs had misdescribed themselves as California limited liability companies rather than Delaware limited liability companies in their unlawful detainer complaints. Defendants argued that this pleading defect deprived the trial court of fundamental jurisdiction because a legally nonexistent entity had no capacity to sue, and based upon Oliver v. Swiss Club Tell (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 528 argued that all judicial action taken in the cases was void ab initio. The trial court denied the motions to vacate. The Court of Appeal disagreed in part, concluding that the issue was whether the discrepancy was curable by amendment, not whether all judicial action in these cases should be treated automatically as a nullity. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded so that plaintiffs, if they wished to do so, could pursue curative amendments under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a)(1). The Court of Appeal expressed no view as to whether such a motion should be granted by the trial court. (C.A. 1st, April 14, 2025.)