Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCV29145, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff 777 Investment Group, LLC’s unopposed motion for summary judgment is granted.

Plaintiff 777 Investment Group, LLC (“777 Investment”) (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed for summary judgment against Hessam Babazdeh (“Babazadeh”) (“Defendant”) on its complaint (“Complaint”) on the grounds there are no triable issues of material fact and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §437c.)

On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative unlawful detainer Complaint against Defendant. (See Complaint.) Defendant filed his answer to the Complaint on December 15, 2023.

On January 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for summary judgment. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-3.) As of the date of this hearing Defendant has not filed an opposition.

Plaintiff alleges on or about April 22, 2019, Defendant agreed to rent 777 E 12th Street, Unit 19, Los Angeles, CA 90021 (“Premises”) as a one year, two months tenancy and agreed to pay monthly rent of $6,000.00 payable on the first of the month. (Complaint ¶¶3a, 6a.) Plaintiff alleges its interest in the Premises is as owner. (Complaint ¶4.) Plaintiff alleges this written agreement was made with Plaintiff. (Complaint ¶¶6b, e, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff alleges the agreement was later changed by rental increases and became a month-to-month tenancy. (Complaint ¶6d.)

Plaintiff alleges the tenancy is not subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (Civil Code §1946.2) based on an exemption in C.C.P. §1179.02(h)(1). (Complaint ¶7a.)

Plaintiff alleges Defendant was served a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit. (Complaint ¶¶9a, e, Exh. 2.) Plaintiff alleges the notice was served on Defendant by posting a copy on the Premises on November 16, 2023, and giving a copy to a person found residing at the premises and mailing a copy to the Defendant at the Premises on November 16, 2023. (Complaint ¶¶10a, d, Exh. 3.) Plaintiff alleges on November 22, 2023, the period stated in the notice expired at the end of the day and Defendant failed to comply with the requirements of the notice by that date. (Complaint ¶9b.)

Plaintiff requests possession of the premises, costs incurred in this proceeding, including past-due rent of $78,000.00, reasonable attorney fees, forfeiture of the agreement, and damages at $200.00 per day for fair rental value of the premises from December 1, 2023, for each day Defendant remains in possession through entry of judgment. (Complaint ¶¶13, 19.)

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. (C.C.P. §437c(c).)

To establish a claim for unlawful detainer, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: (1) plaintiff owns/leases the property; (2) plaintiff rented/subleased the property to defendant; (3) under the lease/rental agreement/sublease, defendant was required to pay rent in a specified amount per period; (4) plaintiff properly gave defendant three days’ written notice to pay the rent or vacate the property; (5) as of the date of the three-day notice, at least the amount stated in the three-day notice was due; (6) defendant did not pay the amount stated in the notice within three days after service/receipt of the notice; and (7) defendant is still occupying the property. (CACI 4302.)

Plaintiff submitted evidence that it served Defendant with a three-day notice to pay or quit on November 16, 2023. (Plaintiff’s Undisputed Separate Statement of Fact [“P-USSF”] 5, 6, 7.) Plaintiff submitted evidence that the Notice demanded that Defendant pay the rent specified in the Notice within three days of service or to vacate the Premises no later than 3 days after service of the Notice, and advised Defendant that any right to possession was terminated and the lease forfeited it Defendant failed to pay the rent demanded within three days. (P-USSF 5.) Plaintiff submitted evidence that Defendant failed to pay the amount of the rent demanded in the three-day Notice within three days or any time thereafter and has also failed to vacate the Premises. (P-USSF 9, 10, 11.) Plaintiff met its burden to demonstrate there is no triable issue of material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ordinarily, Plaintiff would shift the burden to Defendant to raise a triable issue of material fact. However, this motion is unopposed, and no burden-shifting is applicable.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court