Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 21AHCV00143, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21AHCV00143    Hearing Date: August 16, 2022    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT 3

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant Ying Ping Li

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Universal Shopping Plaza

Defendant Ying Ping Li’s Motion to Dismiss

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Universal Shopping Plaza filed this complaint for breach of lease on December 10, 2021 against Defendant Ying Ping Li. The subject premises is a commercial property located at 140 West Valley Blvd., Unit #212, San Gabriel, California (“Premises”). Plaintiff alleges that the parties entered into a written lease agreement on or about February 27, 2009 for the lease of the property to Defendant as tenant. Plaintiff alleges that within the last four years, Defendant breached the lease by failing to pay rent and other charges in the amount of $275,000. (Compl., ¶¶ 15-16.)

Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

///

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that the case is not “ripe” due to the protections afforded to Defendant by the Los Angeles County COVID-19 Tenant Protections Resolution (the “Resolution”).

“Generally, California courts decide only justiciable issues.” (Davis v. Freshno Unified School District (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 911, 926.) “Unripeness” describes a situation where there is no justiciable controversy because an actual dispute or controversy has yet to come into existence. (Ibid.) “When there is no justiciable controversy the proper remedy is . . . to dismiss.” (Connerly v. Schwarzenegger (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 739, 752.)

At the time complaint was filed, the Resolution provided that commercial tenants with ten or more but fewer than 100 employees had until July 31, 2022 to repay unpaid rent incurred during the Protected Time Period, which was March 4, 2020 to January 31, 2022. (Resolution dated 1/25/2022, p. 16.) Defendant contends that the rent at issue in this breach of contract action was subject to the protections of the Resolution, and so the issue was not fit for judicial determination at the time it was filed. But that is not the standard for determining ripeness. The controversy between Plaintiff and Defendant already exists—Plaintiff alleges that past due rent has not been paid. As Plaintiff correctly argues, the protections of the Resolution may offer an affirmative defense by a tenant to any action a landlord brings for the repayment of rental debt. (Resolution dated 1/25/2022, p. 20.) But the existence of those protections does not render Plaintiff’s claim unripe. Moreover, the court notes that, based on the allegations of the complaint, the rent at issue includes rent due outside of the “Protected Time Period”. Plaintiff seeks to recover rent that has not been paid “[w]ithin the last four years.” (Compl., ¶ 15.) Because the complaint was filed in December 2021, the rent at issue could have been incurred between December 2017 and December 2021 (with apparently at least one of those months being February 2020), but the Protected Time Period covers only the period between March 2020 and January 2022. Thus, even setting aside the protections of the Resolution, the face of the complaint reveals a justiciable controversy.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  August 16, 2022

_____________________________

Colin Leis

Judge of the Superior Court