Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 2CMUD01004, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 2CMUD01004 Hearing Date: April 10, 2024 Dept: 14
Barry Saywitz Properties Two, LP v. Medina, et al
Case Background
This is an unlawful detainer case
with a companion wrongful eviction case. The tenants claim that they lost their
jobs during the Covid-19 pandemic and applied for rental assistance from the
state of California, which they got. In January of 2022, the landlord filed an
unlawful detainer proceeding (not the instant proceeding).
In the related case, the tenants
allege that when they asked the landlord’s agent why the previous unlawful
detainer had been filed, the agent told them that the landlord had sought a
bank loan for renovations and the bank had demanded proof that the landlord was
actually trying to collect rent. According to the tenants, the landlord’s agent
told them not to worry, the filing was a formality and would not actually be
pursued.
The previous unlawful detainer was
pursued. Judgment was entered by default. The tenants applied to have the
judgment set aside. While their application was pending, they were evicted. The
court later set aside the judgment as void.
This action has been filed by the
landlord for the sole purpose of recovering unpaid rent.
On August
17, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their form Complaint in Unlawful Detainer against
Defendants Delilah Medina (“Medina”), Theodore Bailey (“Bailey”), and DOES 1-10.
On October
12, 2022, Defendants Medina and Bailey filed their joint form Answer.
No trial
date is currently set.
Instant Hearing
On
February 27, 2023, counsel told this court that they had reached a settlement
agreement. The court then set an OSC re: Dismissal for March 27, 2023. That OSC
was later continued to April 3, 2023.
On
April 3, 2023, the court continued the OSC re: Dismissal to June 30, 2023.
On
June 12, 2023, the court issued a minute order stating that it had received an
Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment. The minute order also stated that
the court rejected the filing because the address of the property as listed in
the judgment did not match the address of the property as listed in the
complaint.
The
OSC re: Dismissal was continued again to November 17, 2023. At that point, this
court converted the hearing into an OSC re: Submission of Stipulated Judgment,
and set it for January 11, 2024. The court subsequently continued the hearing
to January 23, 2024. On that date, the hearing was continued to the instant
date.
On
February 5, 2024, Plaintiff submitted an Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and
Judgment. This was Plaintiff’s only attempt to resubmit since the filing was
rejected eight months before.
The
submitted judgment provides that no money will be paid, but that Defendants
will vacate the premises by June 23, 2023. It also provides that enforcement
will be stayed until June 22, 2022. Finally, it contains an interlineation
which appears to have been done (albeit merely to correct a typographical
error) after the stipulation was executed.
Because
Plaintiff has waited so long to submit this Stipulation and Judgment, it cannot
be entered by the clerk. The court cannot render a judgment requiring that
something occur in the past, or that enforcement be stayed until some time in
the past. Nor can the court enter a stipulation which appears to have been
altered after signature, no matter how innocent the alteration.
At
this point, what Plaintiff has is not a stipulated judgment. It is an executed
contract with a Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 provision. If there are
terms that Defendants have yet to perform, Plaintiff’s remedy is a motion to
enforce the settlement. If Defendants have fully performed, then Plaintiff ought
to dismiss the case.
Therefore,
the clerk is directed to reject the document submitted on February 5, 2024.
This OSC is DISCHARGED. The court sets an OSC re: Dismissal for May 8, 2024 at
8:30 am.