Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STUD10430, Date: 2024-06-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STUD10430    Hearing Date: June 28, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings

On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff Prime/Park LaBrea Titleholder, LLC filed a Complaint suing Defendants Arzu Kocgirli, Serra Altan, and Does 1 to 10 in unlawful detainer.

On September 1, 2023, Defendants Kocgirli and Altan filed Answers to the unlawful detainer Complaint.

On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff requested dismissal of Defendant Serra Altan, which Judge Andrew Esbenshade entered that day.

B. Motion Before the Court

On May 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment in its favor as relates to Defendant Kocgirli, who remains in possession of the subject premises, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of 11 affirmative defenses raised in Defendant Kocgirli’s September 1, 2023, in pro per Answer. Plaintiff served the motion on Defendant Kochirgi via email and via mail at the unlawful detainer subject premises: 5863 West 6th Street, #28-22 Los Angeles, California 90036.

No opposition, reply, or notice of non-opposition appear in the record.

Plaintiff’s motion is now before the Court.

II. Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication: GRANTED as to summary judgment; MOOT as to summary adjudication.

A. Request for Judicial Notice

Per Plaintiff’s request, the Court takes judicial notice of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles’s motion to approve resolution and Resolution of Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles Further Amending and Restating the County of Los Angeles COVID-19 Tenant Protections Resolution. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subds. (c), (d), (h), 453, subds. (a)-(b).)

B. Legal Standard

The procedures governing a motion for summary judgment in an unlawful detainer action are streamlined (e.g., separate statements are not required under section 437c, subdivision (s) of the Code of Civil Procedure), but such a motion “shall be granted or denied on the same basis as a motion under [Code of Civil Procedure s]ection 437c.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1170.7; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1351.)

“In moving for summary judgment, a ‘plaintiff ... has met’ his ‘burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if’ he ‘has proved each element of the cause of action entitling’ him ‘to judgment on that cause of action.’ … [Citation.]” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849 (Aguilar).) “[S]ummary judgment law in this state no longer requires a plaintiff moving for summary judgment to disprove any defense asserted by the defendant as well as prove each element of his own cause of action. … All that the plaintiff need do is to ‘prove[ ] each element of the cause of action.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 853.)

Once the plaintiff makes an adequate initial showing, the burden shifts to the defendant to show a triable issue of fact “as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1); Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 849.) “‘The defendant … may not rely upon the mere allegations or denials’ of his ‘pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead,’ must ‘set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.’ [Citation.]” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 849.)

“‘Evidence presented in opposition to summary judgment is liberally construed, with any doubts about the evidence resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. [Citation.] [¶] Summary judgment is appropriate only ‘where no triable issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ [Citation.]” (Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 607, 618.)

C. Analysis

1. Summary Judgment, Complaint, Unlawful Detainer: GRANTED.

a. Relevant Law

The basic elements of unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2) are: “(1) the tenant is in possession of the premises; (2) that possession is without permission; (3) the tenant is in default for nonpayment of rent; (4) the tenant has been properly served with a written three-day notice; and (5) the default continues after the three-day notice period has elapsed.” (Kruger v. Reyes (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 16.)

b. Court’s Determination

The Court finds that Plaintiff has carried its burden on summary judgment.

Plaintiff has provided prima facie evidence showing that Defendant Kocgirli is currently in possession of the premises. (Motion (Mot.), Separate Statement Undisputed Material Fact (SSUMF) No. 8, citing Mot., Kayembe Declaration (Decl.), ¶ 11.)

Plaintiff has provided prima facie evidence that Defendant Kocgirli’s ongoing possession is without consent based on an unpaid rent balance of $13,252 as of July 7, 2023, when Plaintiff prepared a notice to pay rent or quit demanding the past due rent. (Mot., SSUMF No. 1, citing Mot., Kayembe Decl., ¶¶ 1-2, Ex. 1 [lease agreement, Plaintiff as owner, Defendant Kocgirli as tenant]; Mot., SSUMF No. 3, citing Mot., Kayembe Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 1-2 [lease with original rent amount stated; lease auto-renewal letter with increased rent amount stated]; Mot., SSUMF No. 5, citing Mot., Kayembe Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 3 [notice to pay or quit with unpaid rent balance of $13,252]; Mot., SSUMF No. 6, citing Mot., Kayembe Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 7 [service of notice to pay or quit]; Mot., SSUMF No. 7, citing Mot., Kayembe Decl., ¶ 6 [Defendant Kocgirli has not paid the past due rent].)

Plaintiff has provided prima facie evidence of a default on the rental agreement between the parties by Defendant Kocgirli. (Mot., SSUMF No. 5, citing Mot., Kayembe Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 3 [notice to pay or quit with unpaid rent balance of $13,252]; Mot., SSUMF No. 7, citing Mot., Kayembe Decl., ¶ 6 [Defendant Kocgirli has not paid the past due rent, i.e., not remedied].)

Plaintiff has provided prima facie evidence of proper service of a three day notice to rent or quit on Defendant Kocgirli. (Mot., SSUMF No. 5, citing Mot., Kayembe Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 3 [notice to pay or quit with unpaid rent balance of $13,252]; Mot., SSUMF No. 6, citing Mot., Kayembe Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 7 [service of notice to pay or quit].)

And Plaintiff has provided prima facie evidence of an ongoing default by Defendant Kocgirli. (Mot., SSUMF No. 7, citing Mot., Kayembe Decl., ¶ 6 [Defendant Kocgirli has not paid the past due rent].)

The burden shifts to Defendant Kocgirli, who did not file an opposition and thus does not meet the responsive burden on summary judgment, e.g., burden as to affirmative defenses.

Consequently, summary judgment on the unlawful detainer Complaint is GRANTED.

2. Summary Adjudication, Answers to Complaint, Affirmative Defenses: MOOT.

Because the Court has granted summary judgment, summary adjudication in the alternative is MOOT.

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication [Res ID # 5120] is GRANTED in part and MOOT in part as follows:

(1) GRANTED as to summary judgment; and

(2) MOOT as to summary adjudication.

The Court concurrently signs the proposed order, which limits itself to summary judgment.

Plaintiff shall file a proposed judgment within seven days of this ruling.