Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV27845, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV27845    Hearing Date: January 9, 2025    Dept: 74

AHST 257 LLC v. Esmaeilzadeh

Plaintiff AHST 257 LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment

 

BACKGROUND 

            This motion arises from an unlawful detainer case.

            On October 23, 2024, Plaintiff AHST 257 LLC (AHST) filed the unlawful detainer complaint against defendant Saeid Esmaeilzadeh (Defendant).

            On December 16, 2024, AHST filed a motion for summary judgment.

           

LEGAL STANDARD

In an unlawful detainer motion, a motion for summary judgment may be made any time after the answer is filed and with five days’ notice.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1170.7.)  In an unlawful detainer action, the requirements differ from non-unlawful detainer summary judgment motions as follows: a separate statement need not be filed in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment in an unlawful detainer action (CCP § 437c(b), (s)), the provisions of CCP § 437c(a)-(b) concerning the time for making and hearing the motion (see §§ 13.12-13.16) do not apply to unlawful detainer actions (CCP § 437c(s)), and the provisions for summary judgment set forth in CCP § 437c do not extend the period for trial in an unlawful detainer action specified in CCP §1170.5 (CCP §437c(r)).

            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 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, 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.”  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)  “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.”  (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-382.)

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.) 

Plaintiffs’ initial burden of proof, in moving for summary judgment, does not include disproving affirmative defenses, but instead involves proving each element of a cause of action. (Oldcastle Precast, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 554, 564. 

 

DISCUSSION

The elements of an unlawful detainer are (1) continued possession after default in payment of rent pursuant to the lease or agreement and (2) three days’ notice in writing properly served upon the tenant requiring payment or possession.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1161(2).)  The notice must state the amount that is due, the name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent payments shall be made, and if payment may be made personally, the usual days and hours that person will be available to receive the payment.

According to the evidence AHST has produced, AHST is the owner of 1139 S. Maple Ave, Ste 1139A, Los Angeles, CA 90015 (Property).  (Harkham Decl., ¶ 2; Ex. 1.)  On July 1, 2021, AHST and Defendant entered into a Commercial Lease Agreement where Defendant leased the property for $5,200 per month until July 2023, then $5,356.00 until July 2024.  (Harkham Decl., Ex. 2.)  As of December 16, 2024, Defendant owes $140,735.22 in unpaid rent, and $7,498.26 in holdover damages.  (Harkham Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. 3.)  AHST served Defendant with a 3-Day Notice to Pay or Quit on October 10, 2024.  (Harkham Decl., Ex. 4.)  Defendant did not make any payments after service of the notice.  (Harkham Decl., ¶ 7.)  Defendant remains in possession of the premises.  (Harkham Decl., ¶ 9.) 

AHST has met its initial burden of proving each element of the cause of action.

Defendant alleges that a triable issue of fact remains as to whether AHST’s notice overstates the amount of unpaid rent due.  Defendant states that AHST accepted $20,000 in rent between November 2023 through February 2024.  (Esmaeilzadeh Decl., ¶ 3.)  AHST counters that Defendant’s declaration of payments is inconsistent with Defendant’s discovery responses to Form Interrogatory 71.3.  (Zadeh Decl., Ex. 8.) While Defendant’s declaration is inconsistent with Defendant’s discovery responses, AHST’s ledger is also inconsistent with the payment history alleged in the discovery responses.  (Harkham Decl., Ex. 3; Zadeh Decl., Ex. 8.)  For example, Defendant fails to state making any payments for October 2023, November 2023 or December 2023 in the discovery response, but AHST’s own ledger reports Defendant made two payments in October 2023, one payment in November, and one payment in December.  (Harkham Decl., Ex. 3; Zadeh Decl., Ex. 8.) The inconsistencies between Defendant’s discovery responses and Plaintiff’s own ledger suggests that Defendant’s failure to report November and December payments in Defendant’s discovery responses was Defendant’s oversight. Given the inconsistencies for and against Defendant’s own interests – and for and against Plaintiff’s own interests – the Court does not find that the Plaintiff proved Defendant’s declaration is a “sham affidavit.” 

Defendant contends that the Notice overstated the rent by 31 percent due to the unaccounted payments.  A Notice to Pay or Quit that overstates the rent more than 20 percent is defective.  (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161.1(e).)  Defendant has met his burden in establishing that a triable issue of material fact remains. 

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

 

CONCLUSION

            The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

            Plaintiff to give notice.