LEGAL MEMOS

1215 Fell, SF Owner, LLC v. Fell Street Automotive Clinic (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 739. This is an interesting procedural issue in which Plaintiff’s landlord misdescribed its capacity as being a California limited liability company rather than a Delaware limited liability company in an unlawful detainer complaint and after eviction judgments were entered the tenants moved to set them aside on the basis that the pleading defect deprived the trial court of fundamental jurisdiction because a legally non-existing entity has no capacity to sue. The Court of Appeal agreed, but also this opinion noted that if the landlord wished to pursue an amendment under CCP § 437(a)(1) addressed to the trial court’s discretion to allow an amendment in furtherance of justice and on such terms as would be proper that would be appropriate as well. The Court noted that when a defendant raises an issue of fundamental jurisdiction after entry of judgment on the ground that there is a previously undiscovered pleading defect that was pointed out for the first time two years after the judgement was entered, the Plaintiff was entitled to respond by seeking leave to cure the defect under CCP § 437(a)(1).

Diamond. v. Schweitzer (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 866. In this case the Plaintiff suffered injuries from a punch inflicted by a third party during an altercation in the restricted pit area at a speedway. Defendant contended that the negligence claims being brought by the Plaintiff were barred by the release and waiver of liability form he signed in order to gain admission to the pit area. That argument was upheld with the Court finding that the three requirements for an enforceable release had been met. The release contained a clear, unambiguous and explicit expression of the party’s intent to release all liability for Plaintiff’s injuries. The language was broad not narrow and it encompassed the injuries Plaintiff sustained because they had a logical connection to the items being released with the Court finding that altercations about a sporting event are reasonably related to the purpose and object of the release that exchanges a release for having entry to the racing event. It did not contravene public policy because it did not involve a transaction that affected the public interest.

/ilc