Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 23STUD05333, Date: 2024-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STUD05333    Hearing Date: April 4, 2024    Dept: 74

KG Capital Investments, LLC v. Jose Lopez, et al.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, Summary Adjudication

BACKGROUND

            This action arises from a landlord-tenant dispute.

            On May 11, 2023, Plaintiff KG Capital Investments, LLC (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Jose Lopez and Sebastiana Hernandez (Defendants).

            On October 6, 2023, Defendants filed this motion for summary judgment.

LEGAL STANDARD 

            “¿[A] motion for summary judgment 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 a judgment as a matter of law.¿” (¿¿Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c)¿¿.) The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. (¿¿Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850¿¿.) If the moving party carries this burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a prima facie showing that a triable issue of material fact exists. (¿¿Ibid.¿¿) Courts “¿liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.¿” (¿¿Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389¿¿.)

DISCUSSION

            Defendants argue Plaintiff cannot prevail in this unlawful detainer action because the notice to pay rent or quit was defective. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (2), the notice must state the amount of rent due and one of the following: (1) the name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent payment must be made, (2) the number of an account in a financial institution where the rental payment may be made, or (3) if an electronic funds transfer procedure has previously been established, that payment may be made through that procedure.

            Here, the notice states Defendants must deliver the rental payment to Plaintiff and provides Plaintiff’s address, telephone number, and office hours. (Complaint, Ex. 2.) Defendants contend the notice is defective because it does not name a person who works for Plaintiff and to whom Defendants could deliver the rental payment. Moreover, Defendants also object that the notice does not clarify whether they should personally deliver or mail the rental payment.

            However, the notice also provides that Defendants may make the payment through an electronic funds transfer procedure to which the parties had already agreed. (Complaint, Ex. 2 [“In the alternative of delivering rent in person or by mail, because you have previously made your rent payments through an online tenant portal that you are directly linked to, you may pay your rent in full by that means.”].) If a party uses this alternative under Code of Civil Procedure section 11161, subdivision (2), the notice need not state the name and address of the person to whom payment must be made. (Foster v. Williams (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th Supp. 9, 16-17.) Because the notice is not defective for the reasons Defendants cite, Defendants have not met their prima facie burden.

CONCLUSION

                The court denies Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

            Defendants shall give notice.