Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 20STCV35154, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV35154 Hearing Date: April 9, 2024 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
Exchange Building, LP’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, Alternatively, Summary
Adjudication on The Complaint.
BACKGROUND
BROADWAY EXCHANGE BUILDING, LP (“Plaintiff”) brings
this case against VIANEY SANDERSON (“Defendant”) for Defendant’s alleged breach
of her lease with Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s causes of action are (1) Breach of
Lease and (2) Breach of Guaranty.
Plaintiff brings a motion requesting summary judgment on
its claims, or summary adjudication of the following issues: 1) Defendant
Sanderson’s obligation under the parties’ lease agreement to pay rent to
Plaintiff between April 2020 and December 2020 was not excused due to the
COVID-19 pandemic and resulting government orders; 2) Defendant Sanderson
abandoned the Premises on November 25, 2020; and 3) Defendant Sanderson’s
fixed-term lease for the premises expired on December 31, 2020. Plaintiff
opposes the motion as to each claim and issue raised by the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
The initial burden rests with the side moving for
summary judgment before the burden to raise triable issues shifts to the
opposing party. Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th
1510, 1519.
ANALYSIS
1. Whether
The Motion Is Procedurally Defective
Plaintiff contends that the motion fails because the
issues stated in the notice do not dispose of any entire cause of action as
required.
“[T]he code does not employ the term ‘partial summary
judgment,’ presumably because it is a misnomer since no judgment is entered in
connection with that procedure of granting summary adjudication of
issues.” City of Santee v. Sup. Ct.
(1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 713, 720, fn.5. Legislative intent is that an issue shall
be worded to dispose of an entire cause of action or defense. E.g., Nazir v.
United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 249. A plaintiff cannot
obtain summary adjudication as to liability while leaving the amount of damages
to be determined later. Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (2014) 227
Cal.App.4th 226, 241.
To be considered, all evidence referenced in a
separate statement must be filed and part of the court record. West v.
Sundown Little League of Stockton, Inc. (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 351,
363.
Here, Plaintiff did not word the notice’s issues to
dispose of any entire claim or defense. Further, the notice and separate
statement do not state any complete amount of damages to dispose of the claims.
Likewise, the reply uncertainly argues for an unspecified amount of damages in
addition to other types. E.g., reply, 3:19-22 (“damages in the amount of
$54,450.00 for rent due and unpaid under the Lease for the months of April 2020
through December 2020…, and such other relief as may be just.”). Because the
Complaint and other documents seek unlimited damages, factfinders would need to
decide the dispute about abandonment and the length of the lease, before deciding
any other damages that may be available. See Avalon Pac.-Santa Ana, L.P. v.
HD Supply Repair & Remodel, LLC (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 1183, 1211;
and Civ. Code § 1951.2.
Therefore, on procedural grounds, the law does not
authorize the Court to grant summary judgment without resolving damages, or summary
adjudication of the issues addressing only parts of the claims of defenses.
Nevertheless, the Court will proceed to address the merits.
2. Whether
Defendant’s Obligation to Pay Rent Between April 2020 and November 2020 was
Excused Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Resulting Government Orders
Plaintiff alleges claims against Defendant for breach
of lease and breach of guaranty. The elements of a claim for breach of lease
are:
Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. N. Y. Times
Co.
(2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178
The elements of a claim for breach of guaranty are:
1.
Defendant guaranteed payment of the
indebtedness of the primary obligor to the plaintiff;
2.
default on the indebtedness;
3.
plaintiff notified the guarantor of the
default;
4.
the guarantor did not remit funds to the
plaintiff under the guaranty agreements.
Torrey Pines Bank v. Sup. Ct. (1989)
216 Cal.App.3d 813, 819.
Plaintiff contends that the pandemic lockdown did not
frustrate the purpose of the subject lease or excuse the failure to pay rent
owed. Defendant counters based on her
declaration describing the pandemic as causing lost business revenue, and thus
an inability and temporary excuse.
A commercial lessee’s force majeure provision does not
excuse paying rent, unless the capability was delayed, interrupted, or
prevented by COVID-19, due to timely performance being impossible or
impracticable with extreme and unreasonable difficulty. KB Salt Lake III,
LLC v. Fitness Int'l, LLC (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1054 (“There is no
triable issue of fact … because [the tenant] admitted that it had the financial
resources to pay rent ... for the subject months, even though ... operating at
a loss.”). Commercial tenants remain obligated to pay rent pursuant to the
lease while in possession of the premises. E.g., SVAP III Poway Crossings,
LLC v. Fitness Int'l, LLC (2023) 287 Cal.App.5th 882, 896. “The Moratorium
also provided tenants with a year-long forbearance period after the Moratorium
ends to pay overdue rent.” Iten v. Los Angeles (9th Cir.
2023) 81 F.4th 979, 982. The moratorium has been applied to commercial tenants
having nine or fewer employees. See Los Angeles County COVID-19 Eviction
Moratorium (Exec. Order of the Chair of the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors, § III(e) (9/1/20)). So, although Defendant’s obligation to pay
rent was not excused, it was legitimately delayed.
Applying the applicable law, the Court determines that
Plaintiff adequately evidenced that Defendant has failed to pay rent even after
the expiration of the moratorium. However, Defendant’s declaration, at
paragraphs 4 through 5, raises disputes about a pandemic-related excuse for the
lessee’s at least temporarily failing to pay rent.
Thus, this issue is denied, in relation to the dispute
about a temporary excuse of the obligation to pay some rent.
3. Whether
Defendant Abandoned the Premises on 11/25/20
The Court determines that Plaintiff shifted the burden
of proof to show tenant abandonment, including based on evidence that Plaintiff
permanently vacated the subject property, and that Defendant did not enter it
until after the lease term expired. In opposition, Defendant contends that her
deposition testimony did not state any intent to go out of business, but
instead to close a few weeks to hire new staff. Further, Defendant’s
declaration and exhibits reasonably infer that Plaintiff intended to stay as an
occupant of the subject premises, given ongoing communications with the
Defendant.
Under the disputed circumstances in evidence, factfinders
reasonably could find that Plaintiff did not believe that Defendant vacated the
premises, when Defendant left personal property on the premises worth
approximately $150,000, Defendant and the Plaintiff continuingly discussed
plans to reopen the business, and Defendant continued to pay utility bills. (E.g.,
Sanderson decl., ¶¶ 6-16.)
Therefore, the motion is denied as to this issue,
given disputes about whether tenant abandonment occurred.
4. Whether
Plaintiff’s Fixed-Term Lease for the Premises Expired on 12/31/20 Such That
Entry Afterwards Was Not Wrongful.
Regarding the initial burden, Plaintiff provides
evidence that Defendant never exercised the option to extend the lease, such
that Plaintiff permanently vacated the subject property, and Defendant did not
enter the property until after the lease term expired. (Boris Mayzels Decl., ¶¶
3 and 14.) In contrast, Plaintiff’s declaration shows exercising the option to
extend the lease. (Sanderson Decl., ¶ 3.)
Hence, the motion is denied as to this issue that is related
to disputed evidence about the lease term.
CONCLUSION
The Court denies the motion for summary judgment, and
alternative motion for summary adjudication.