Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 24STCV01908, Date: 2024-07-16 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff The Pico Place LLC’s unopposed motion for summary judgment is granted.

Plaintiff The Pico Place LLC (“Pico Place”) (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed for summary judgment against Defendant Freddie Lewis (“Lewis”) (“Defendant”). (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§437c, 1107.7.) Plaintiff moves on the grounds there is no material disputed facts rendering summary judgment appropriate regarding possession of the property commonly known as 6565 S Western Ave., #3, Los Angeles, CA 90047. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.)

On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff had Defendant served with a Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit for rent owed for the rental period of March 2023 through January 2024 in the amount of $40,100.00. (Decl. of Saghian ¶6, Exhs. 2, 3.) On January 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint against Defendant for unlawful detainer. On or about February 7, 2024, Defendant filed an Answer.

On or about April 3, 2024, Defendant filed for Voluntary Chapter 13 Bankruptcy through the California Central Bankruptcy Court, Case No. 2:24-bk-12573-VZ. The case was automatically dismissed on April 25, 2024, for Defendant’s failure to file schedules, statements and/or plan. (5/31/24 Notice of Lodging.)

On May 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for summary judgment. As of the date of this hearing Defendant has not filed an opposition.

Plaintiff alleges it is the owner of 6565 S Western Ave., #3, Los Angeles, CA 90047, Los Angeles County (“Premises”). (Complaint ¶¶3-4.) Plaintiff alleges on or about February 1, 2023, Defendant agreed to rent the premises as a month-to-month tenancy and agreed to pay monthly rent of $4,000.00 on the first of the month. (Complaint ¶6a.) Plaintiff alleges this oral agreement was made with Plaintiff, and a copy of the written agreement is not attached to the Complaint because the written agreement is no tin the possession of the landlord or the landlord’s employees and agents, and because this action is solely for nonpayment of rent. (Complaint ¶¶6b, f.)

Plaintiff alleges the tenancy is not subject to the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 because the tenancy is commercial in nature. (Complaint ¶7a.) Plaintiff alleges the tenancy was terminated for at-fault just cause, under §1946.2(b)(1). (Complaint ¶8a.)

Plaintiff alleges Defendant and all unknown occupants were served a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit. (Complaint ¶¶9a(1), e, Exh. 2.) Plaintiff alleges the notice was served on Defendant by personally handing a copy to Defendant on January 12, 2024. (Complaint ¶¶10a(1).) Plaintiff alleges on January 18, 2024, 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 $40,100.00, reasonable attorney fees, forfeiture of the agreement, and damages at the rate of $133.33 per day for fair rental value of the premises from January 19, 2024, for each day Defendants 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. (See C.C.P. §1161; CACI 4302.)

Plaintiff submitted undisputed evidence that it owns the Premises leased to Defendant. (Decl. of Saghian ¶4, Exh. 1.) Plaintiff submitted undisputed evidence that it entered into an oral lease agreement for the Premises with Defendant on February 1, 2023, for the amount of $4,000.00 to be paid on the first day of each calendar month. (Decl. of Saghian ¶5.) Plaintiff submitted undisputed evidence that the three-day notice of pay rent or quit was personally served to Defendant. (Decl. of Saghian ¶6, Exhs. 2, 3.) Plaintiff submitted undisputed evidence that after the three-day notice of pay rent or quit, Defendant failed to pay or quit possession of the Premises, and Plaintiff has not received any rent from Defendant since March 2023 and Defendant is still in possession of the Premises. (Decl. of Saghian ¶8.) 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.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary judgment against Defendant is granted.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court