De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- Citation
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- Parent Document
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 2026-01-27
Other Sections in This Document (26)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
- De Paolo v. Rosales (2026)
Full Text
728 charsThe complaint further alleged that Rosales’s “resident manager’s services terminated as of August, 2023” and defendant and all unnamed occupants failed to comply with the requirements of the 30-day notice by the end of the compliance period. A copy of the notice, which was dated July 10, 2024, was attached to the complaint, and it stated, in pertinent part, that defendant and all others in possession were required to quit and deliver possession of the premises within 30 days after service of the notice or by Monday, August 13, 2024 at noon, whichever was later in time. The notice read that “[t]his notice to quit is served upon you for the purpose of enforcing your written August 9, 2023 termination as employee (on site