Judge Andrew E. Cooper, Case Number: 22CHCV01248, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

FEBRUARY 19, 2025

Los Angeles Superior Court Case # 22CHCV01248

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Lorenzo Cortez, Trustee for the Hara Cortez Gonzalez Trust (“Defendant”)

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Plaintiff to file an undertaking in the amount of $20,000.00 to secure award of fees and costs that may be awarded in this action.

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted. Plaintiff to file an undertaking in the amount of $20,000.00 within 45 days.

This is a habitability action in which Plaintiff alleges that he resided at certain property owned and managed by Defendant, located at 13617 Mercer Street, Pacoima, California 91331. (Compl. ¶¶ 1–5.) “During the course and scope of the tenancy, habitability violations existed that were never addressed for Property including, but not limited to, vermin infestation, defective electrical creating safety concerns and unsafe environments for Plaintiffs, lack of security and general dereliction of duties.” (Id. at ¶ 9.)

On 11/29/22, Plaintiff filed his complaint, alleging against Defendant the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Civil Code §1942.4; (2) Tortious Breach of Warranty of Habitability; (3) Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (4) Nuisance; (5) Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; (6) Negligence & Negligent Hiring and Training; (7) Intrusion; and (8) Anti-Tenant Harassment. On 2/3/23, Defendant filed its general denial.

On 10/3/24, Defendant filed the instant motion. No opposition has been filed to date.

“When the plaintiff in an action or special proceeding resides out of the state, … the defendant may at any time apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to file an undertaking to secure an award of costs and attorney’s fees which may be awarded in the action or special proceeding. For the purposes of this section, ‘attorney’s fees’ means reasonable attorney’s fees a party may be authorized to recover by a statute apart from this section or by contract.” (Code Civ. Proc. ¶ 1030, subd. (a).)

“The motion shall be made on the grounds that the plaintiff resides out of the state or is a foreign corporation and that there is a reasonable possibility that the moving defendant will obtain judgment in the action or special proceeding. The motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit in support of the grounds for the motion and by a memorandum of points and authorities. The affidavit shall set forth the nature and amount of the costs and attorney’s fees the defendant has incurred and expects to incur by the conclusion of the action or special proceeding.” (Id. at subd. (b).)

Here, Defendant’s counsel declares that “Plaintiff has responded to the Defendant’s discovery requests set one, on July 10, 2023, with unverified responses signed by his attorney. Under penalty of perjury, Plaintiff indicated he was living out of State.” (Decl. of James D. Lyon ¶ 5.)[1] Defendant further argues that there is a reasonable possibility that he will prevail in this action because Plaintiff was not a lawful resident of the subject property, but “a guest or licensee and became a trespasser by refusing to leave.” (Def.’s Mot. 5:1.) “Plaintiff voluntarily vacated the subject property after eight or ten months after the City authorities allowed [the tenant] to remove the lock to the garage.” (Id. at 5:8–10.)

Defendant’s counsel further declares that the estimated current and anticipated costs and fees recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 total $20,456.00. (Lyon Decl. ¶ 6.) this amount encompasses: filing and motion fees ($507.00), jury fees ($2,150.00), deposition costs ($2,299.00), expert fees ($11,500.00), and exhibits ($4,000.00). (Ibid.)

“The plaintiff may oppose the motion by proof of residency in California or by proof of the strength of the case against the defendant. The trial court has discretion to waive the posting of security if the plaintiff establishes indigency, but the plaintiff should make a prima facie showing of unsuccessful efforts to obtain the required undertaking and/or inability to furnish it.” (1 Cal. Affirmative Def. § 13:4 (2d ed.).) Here, the Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to file any opposition to the instant motion.

The unopposed motion is granted. Plaintiff to file an undertaking in the amount of $20,000.00 within 45 days.

[1] The Court notes that Defendant’s counsel references the subject discovery responses as Exhibit A to his declaration but has failed to attach any exhibits to his declaration.