All Forum Posts by: James Qiu

 My thoughts exactly. Thanks.

Hi Mike,

Thank you for the insight. By your reasoning of ex parte, it does not sound like I'm required to attend the hearing. But since she has informed me of the hearing, should I attend the hearing to present my evidence and defend myself? What's the pros and cons to be at the hearing? FYI, she did write "in pro per" which is same as "pro se". Also original Judgement was entered by default, so it was signed by a clerk not a judge.

Thanks again!

So my long and draining exercise of evicting my tenant is about to finish (or so I thought), after the deputy has scheduled the lockout. Today I got a call and text message from my tenant that she filed an Ex Parte application for an emergency hearing to determine whether to "stay the lockout". So far I have not heard from the Sheriff department to reschedule the lockout. My question is that without any Court order to delay the lockout or Writ of Procession, should I go through with the lockout? I don't see the reason not to, since the last Court order to the Sheriff department was to lockout. Anyone has any experience in similar situation? In the Ex Parte, she stated that she has nowhere to go and has cancer (she never mentioned to me before now), and she never received eviction paper works from me, but I have videos and pictures when she was severed and text messages where she admitted been severed.

 Thanks Moses.

@Caroline Gerardo I just reread it again (and again). I think that you are right. The answer to 4(b) should be "NO". Thanks again.

@Caroline Gerardo thanks again for the reply. I think we are in agreement that it's NOT a hotel. The difference is that I think marking "YES" means that, but you think it's "NO". Can someone else confirm either way? Here is the actual wording for 4(b) and 1940(b).

@Caroline Gerardo thanks for your reply. I agree with 4(a) is YES, but for 4(b), I thought it should also be YES. 1940(b) states that the term "persons who hire" does not include someone who maintains a transient occupancy in a hotel, motel, residence club ...... So 4(b) together with 1940(b) should really read "All defendants named in this action maintain occupancy as "person who hire" (tenant) who does not include someone who maintains a transient occupancy in a hotel, motel, residence club ...... So YES means NOT living in hotel or motel as in my case. Am I right? The wording is so confusing.

Hi fellow investors,

I'm in the process of filing Unlawful Detainer in San Diego against my tenant. So far, I'm having some really bad lucks. It all because of a new form I have to fill out, namely UD-101 Plaintiff's Mandatory Cover Sheet. First time, I didn't fill in 4(a), then second time, I was told that I I need to fill in 4(b) which says "All defendants named in this action maintain occupancy as described in Civil Code section 1940(b)". I think I should put "YES" to this item. Can someone who has filled in this form before confirm this? Is there a sample UD-101 that I can check answers against? I just don't want to be kicked back again. I've done UD before COVID, and it was quite smooth, but not this time.

Thanks

James

@Patrick Philip yes, because it's essential. Just credit them the days during which power is out.