Kenneth S. Taylor v. Judge Michael C. Martin

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJune 11, 20255:25-cv-01447California1,240 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. Background

Plaintiffs’ complaint and accompanying motion for a temporary restraining order is confusing, hard to follow, and does not contain much factual detail. Nonetheless, the Court will briefly summarize the facts of the case as it can understand them. Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with FG Temecula Senior Apartments, LP (hereinafter “Temecula Apartments”) that began on July 31, 2024, and ended on August 30, 2025. Declaration of Kenneth S. Taylor (“Kenneth Decl.”) § 2, Compl. at 18, ECF No. 1. In February 2025, Plaintiffs failed to

Initials of Preparer PMC

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Pave lof5

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 5:25-cv-01447-SVW-KES Date June 11, 2025

Title Kenneth S. Taylor et al. v. Judge Michael C. Martin et al.

pay their full rent balance. See Superior Court of California Ruling on Temecula Apartments Unlawful Detainer Action against Plaintiffs at 2 (“California Unlawful Detainer Ruling”), Compl. at 11. In March, they did not pay any rent. Id.

Because of this, in April 2025, Temecula Apartments sent Plaintiffs a “3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.