Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV01989, Date: 2024-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01989    Hearing Date: May 22, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Motion of Keller Williams Realty, Inc. for Summary Adjudication.

BACKGROUND

SHELON DOUGLAS (“Plaintiff”) brings this case for alleged habitability issues in her rental unit. Plaintiff alleges that her landlords MOLLY WAGGONER and JASON WAGGONER (“Waggoners”) and the broker KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC. (“Keller”) caused a rental listing to be posted to the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) that advertised rental residential property for rent and claimed that it was equipped with central air and heating, and the Waggoners verbally stated similarly. However, allegedly there were a myriad of habitability issues, including inadequate heat. The causes of action against Keller are (1) Negligence and (5) Fraudulent Misrepresentation.

Keller has filed a motion requesting summary adjudication on three issues. There is no opposition filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

The initial burden rests with the side moving for summary judgment, even in the absence of an opposition. Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.

ANALYSIS

The motion is made on grounds that there exists no triable issue of material fact that: (1) Keller is not liable for the alleged negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation of its franchisee, Marina Brokerage Partners, Inc. dba Keller Williams Silicon Beach that independently acted as the listing broker for the lease, (2) Plaintiff’s negligence claim in the Complaint was filed untimely beyond two years after Plaintiff became aware of the alleged defects, and (3) Keller made no  misrepresentation to Plaintiff that she would have reasonably relied upon as required for a fraud claim.

First, Keller submits a Market Center License Agreement, having sections 19.02 and 6.01, providing for no agency relationship with the listing broker. Separate statement fact numbers 1-3.

Additionally, Keller provides proof that Plaintiff was aware of the alleged defects by 6/29/20 when she emailed about a defective furnace, and Plaintiff filed the Complaint over two years later. Separate statement, fact numbers 6 and 8.

Finally, Keller argues that allegedly pointing to a vent and thermostat was not a misrepresentation, and an MLS Sheet that Plaintiff reviewed contained disclaimers that the brokers/agents do not represent the conditions or features of the property, but instead the Plaintiff was to investigate. Separate statement, fact number 9.

By such evidence, Keller has shifted the burden of proof on all three issues in the motion, but Plaintiff has filed no opposition in order to raise any triable issues of material fact as to those issues.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, the Court grants the unopposed motion. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the motion.