Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case Number: 23GDCV00376, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 23GDCV00376, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV00376 Hearing Date: January 26, 2024 Dept: E

Hearing Date: 01/19/2024 – 8:30am

Case No: 23GDCV00376
Trial Date: UNSET

Case Name: SHIN HO KIM and GENA SOON YOON v. ROBERT YEPREMIAN

[PLAINTIFF’S MSJ/MSA]

RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiffs SHIN HO KIM and GENA SOON YOON ("Plaintiffs"), will and hereby do move the Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c, as incorporated by reference by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1170. 7, for an order granting summary judgment to Plaintiffs on their First Amended Complaint for Unlawful Detainer ("FAC") and against Defendant ROBERT YEPREMIAN ("Defendant") on the grounds that the undisputed material facts show that: (1) Defendant failed to comply with the terms, conditions, and covenants of the commercial Lease Agreement ("Lease") by his repeated failure to make timely rent payments; and (2) The Lease was never extended and expired at midnight on July 16, 2022, notwithstanding Defendant's unconsented occupancy since then. Alternatively, Plaintiffs will move for an order granting summary adjudication as to each of Defendant's six affirmative defenses.

PROCEDURAL

Moving Party: Plaintiffs, Shin Ho Kim and Gena Soon Yoon

Responding Party: Opposition

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion

Opposition Papers: Yes

Reply Papers: Yes

Procedural

Timeliness
“A motion for summary judgment may be made at any time after the answer is filed upon giving five days’ notice. Summary judgment shall be granted or denied on the same basis as a motion under Section 437c.” (CCP §1170.7.)

Here, the motion appears timely.

LEGAL STANDARD

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)

The motion shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(c).) In determining if the papers show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact, the court shall consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers, except the evidence to which objections have been made and sustained by the court, and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence, except summary judgment shall not be granted by the court based on inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence if contradicted by other inferences or evidence that raise a triable issue as to any material fact. (Id.)

CCP §437c(f)(1) states:

A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.

(CCP §437c(f)(1).)

Further, CCP §437c(f)(2) provides:

A motion for summary adjudication may be made by itself or as an alternative to a motion for summary judgment and shall proceed in all procedural respects as a motion for summary judgment. A party shall not move for summary judgment based on issues asserted in a prior motion for summary adjudication and denied by the court unless that party establishes, to the satisfaction of the court, newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law supporting the issues reasserted in the summary judgment motion.

(CCP §437c(f)(2).

Further, for purposes of motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication:

A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The defendant or cross-defendant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.

(CCP §437c(p)(1).)

ANALYSIS
As a preliminary matter, the moving, responding, and reply briefs are confusingly written and not models of clarity.

While Plaintiffs were not required to submit a separate statement (see CCP §437c(s)), a separate statement would have been helpful to the Court.

Plaintiffs move for summary judgment as to their unlawful-detainer action in their FAC. Plaintiffs state that the elements of an unlawful-detainer action are as follows:

The elements of unlawful detainer based on the expiration of a fixed-term tenancy are: (1) the plaintiff owns the property; (2) the plaintiff leased the property to the defendant; (3) the plaintiff did not give the defendant permission to occupy the property after the lease term ended; and (4) the defendant still occupies the property. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161; CACI No. 4301.)

(Citing CCP § 1161(1).)

Assuming Plaintiffs’ cited standard for unlawful detainer is correct, it appears as if Plaintiffs satisfied each element of their action as follows:

1. The plaintiff owns the property

Here, based on the Salem declaration at ¶3 and Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, Plaintiffs appear to own the premises based on an assignment by the prior owner.

2. The plaintiff leased the property to the defendant
Defendant was a tenant in the leased property pursuant to a 5-year fixed term commercial lease. (Salem Decl. ¶3, Ex. 1, Ex. 2.)

3. The plaintiff did not give the defendant permission to occupy the property after the lease term ended
Plaintiff state that they “are bringing this unlawful-detainer action based both on the expiration of the fixed term lease, as well as because Defendant has been in default of the terms, conditions, and covenants of the lease by failing to pay rent on a timely basis, thereby entitling Plaintiffs to terminate the lease on notice to the tenant.” (Reply at 3.)

Generally speaking, what appears to be Plaintiffs’ argument is that during the period of the lease, the Plaintiffs defaulted under the lease for failing to pay rent on time and on some occasions not making any payments. The question appears to be whether there is any dispute of material fact as to whether Defendant exercised an option to extend the lease.

(4) The defendant still occupies the property

Here, Plaintiffs stated that Defendant still continues to occupy the premises. (Salem Decl. ¶21.)

Further Notes

Plaintiffs also moved for summary adjudication as to each of Defendant’s six affirmative defenses. The Court finds the parties’ discussion of the affirmative defenses difficult to follow. The Court will hear argument as to the affirmative defenses at the hearing.

TENATIVE RULING
The Court will hear argument before rendering a decision.