Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: BC643861, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Here is the final ruling on the trial of the 6th Cause of Action and the tentative ruling on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings:

The parties to this action stipulated to the Court’s bifurcating the remaining two causes of action remaining in Plaintiff’s complaint, and having the Court try the 6^th Cause of Action for Declaratory relief first as a bench trial. The Court tried the 6^th Cause of Action commencing August 7, 2023, and concluding August 10, 2023. On October 2, 2023, the Court issued a Proposed Statement of Decision. The Court has received and reviewed Defendants’ Request for Statement of Decision on Omitted Controverted Issues, etc. dated October 12, 2023, and Plaintiff’s Response thereto dated October 23, 2023, the Court now issues its Final Decision.

“SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION – DECLARATORY RELIEF (IN THE ALTERNATIVE) (Declaratory Relief: By Plaintiff as to all Defendants)

275. Plaintiff incorporate herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 274 of this Complaint.

276. If the Court finds any valid tenancies, Plaintiff and those Defendants need to know what are the terms of the tenancies going forward, and for the seventh cause of action.

and formal discovery. If the Court is going to allow Defendants to stay, they should certainly be bound by the no-subletting provision, inter alia, from the AAGLA form lease. The specific terms are alleged in Paragraphs 87, 111, 134, 143, 164, 190, 208, 223, 238, and 249, above.

pleading and depositions that contradict their estoppel certificates, such as the right to parking and utilities paid by Plaintiff. Plaintiff disputes such rights exist.

rights in their pleading and depositions that contradict the alleged lease, such as the right of Ms. Ozu to reside in the unit. Plaintiff disputes such rights exist.

constitutional law) when several of the Defendants do not even live in the Buildings, have vacated and returned several times, etc. Plaintiff disputes such rights exist, but Defendants plead the contrary.

amount was elder abuse, and the “rents” should be set at the amount they could have been raised to, but for Mr. Holmstrom’s elder abuse and breach of fiduciary duties.

not their true rent, and the Court should declare the proper “rent,” both going

selected by Holmstrom, and a separate written “lease” with Holmstrom, and the

“rent” Defendants currently allege is only their share of the “rent.” The Court

should determine that Plaintiff has the right to add roommates of its choosing to

The parties requested the Court try the Declaratory Relief cause of action as a bench trial before trying the Breach of Contract cause of action to a jury.

Trial on the 6^th Cause of Action was held August 7, 2023, through August 10, 2023.

Plaintiff first called Jim Collins. Mr. Collins was Plaintiff’s buildings’ prior owner’s bookkeeper from 1999-2017. Mr. Collins offered no relevant admissible evidence.

Plaintiff then called Defendant, Paola Caldera. Paola Caldera testified that she has lived at 543 Landfair, #8, since early 2016. She knew the buildings’ prior owner, Rita Seifer, and considered her to be like a grandmother. She moved into #8 with her sister, Jessica Caldera, and her 1–2-year-old niece, Briana. Ms. Seifer wanted them to have the unit for free, but their father insisted that they pay for it. They had no written lease. The landlord paid for all their utilities, and they had a parking spot.

Ms. Caldera signed a Tenant Estoppel Certificate on May 29, 2016. (Exhibit 131.) In the Certificate, Ms. Caldera verifies that she was current in her $800 monthly rent, that she had no storage space or parking spot, and that she was responsible for all utilities except water.

Plaintiff also submitted deposition testimony from Ms. Caldera indicating that she read the Certificate before signing it and was allowed to ask Mr. Holmstrom questions about it. (Exhibit 206.)

Plaintiff next called Osman Celik. Mr. Celik is not a defendant. He lived at 540 Glenrock, #2, as a roommate to someone in 2000. In 2001, he moved to 543 Lanfair Avenue, #11 (or #10), again as a roommate, with Defendant, Nima Razfar. In 2002, he married, and moved into 540 Glenrock, #3. He signed a lease with the property manager, Myron Holstrom, for this unit. In 2010-2011, he, his wife, and daughter moved into 540 Glenrock, #6. Mr. Holstrom, again, asked him to sign a lease. Mr. Celik was unable to locate copies of any of the leases he signed. Plaintiff introduced a copy of a Tenant Estoppel Certificate signed by Mr. Celik for 540 Glenrock, #6. (Exhibit 81.) Mr. Celik recalled, and the Certificate reflects, that he paid for all utilities except water.

Plaintiff next called Min Zhou. Ms. Zhou moved into 543 Lanfair, #16, at the end of 2017. She used to live in #10. She moved in with her spouse, Yunging Li, who was already living there. Ms. Li has since moved out. Ms. Li’s daughter, Jia Shen, previously occupied #16, but had moved out before Ms. Li moved in. At some point, they swapped #10 and #16. Ms. Shen now lives in #10. At some point, Ms. Zhou asked Plaintiff to change the lock to #16 so that Ms. Shen could not enter.

Ms. Shen signed a Tenant Estoppel Certificate for #10 on May 29, 2016. (Exhibit 10.)

Plaintiff next called Nima Razfar. Mr. Razfar has occupied 540 Landfair, #12, since the Fall of 1996. Mr. Razfar testified that Myron Holstrom told hm what his rent would be. In 2001, he took in Osman Celik as a roommate. Mr. Razfar’s brother, Ali Razfar, rented 540 Landfair, #14 in 2010. From time to time, Ali Razfar would stay in Nima Razfar’s #12 because Ali Razfar had sublet #14 out to Ali Reza for about a year. Unit #14 was also occupied by Amir Farid for 4 to 6 months, although Mr. Farid did not pay rent. Mr. Razfar testified that #12 and #14 both have a right to 2 parking spots (4 spots in total).

Neither Nima Razfar nor his brother, Ali Razfar, signed a lease for their units. Mr. Razfar refused to sign a Tenant Estoppel Certificate (Exhibit 61) because the way he was requested to sign made him uncomfortable and because he did not believe it accurately reflected the terms of his tenancy. Specifically, Mr. Razfar disagreed with the Certificate’s representation that #12 had only one parking space and no storage space and that it suggested a prior written lease. He testified that all other aspects of the Certificate appeared correct, including that he was responsible for paying for all utilities except water.

Plaintiff called non-party, Paulos Zecharia. Mr. Zecharia moved into 540 Glenrock, #3, on July 3, 2014. Mr. Zecharia moved in initially as a roommate to Jacob Rosenberg. Upon moving in, Mr. Zecharia signed a written lease on a form prepared by the Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA). (Exhibit 101.) The lease was presented to him by Myron Holmstrom.

On May 29, 2016, Mr. Zecharia signed a Tenant Estoppel Certificate (Exhibit 99). By the time of his signing the Certificate, Jacob Rosenberg had moved out and a Brandon Fasy had replaced him.

Mr. Zecharia’s lease indicates that the landlord pays for electricity; the Certificate says Mr. Zecharia does.

Plaintiff called non-party, David Bessler. Mr. Bessler testified that he assisted Rita Seifer, the prior owner of the 2 apartment buildings, apply for financing for improvements to the buildings. He found discrepancies in the financials prepared by Ms. Seifer’s manager, Myron Holmstrom. He had looked for leases for the units in the 2 buildings but could not find any.

Plaintiff called Defendant, Nadia Saban. Ms. Saban has lived at 543 Landfair, #1 since September of 2015. Previously she had lived in 543 Landfair, #2. She lives at #1 with her mother. She works as a nanny and registered her business with the City of Los Angeles using the 543 Landfair #1 address. (Exhibit 162.) She babysits in other people’s homes. She has brought children to her apartment on only a few occasions, primarily to say hello to her mother. She has never babysat children in her unit.

Ms. Saban was not asked to sign a lease for #1. She did sign a Tenant Estoppel Certificate on May 27, 2016. (Exhibit 128.) She pays for her own utilities except water, consistent with the Certificate. She does not believe that she has the right to either sublet her unit or to have additional roommates.

Plaintiff called Defendant, Paul Luigi. He lives at 540 Glenrock, #2, having moved in in June 2011. Mr. Luigi does not recall telling Plaintiff’s principal, Damon Akhavi, that he did not have a written lease. He has some memory of making a complaint to the Housing Department about Plaintiff. He may have submitted a copy of a lease with that complaint. When confronted with a copy of a lease (Exhibit 157/2-5), he recognized it as his lease for 540 Glenrock, #2. Myron Holmstrom gave him the lease for his signature. The lease provides for a parking space. The space is a tandem space. He has parked his 2 cars there for over 10 years.

Ms. Ganchimeg Oyunchimeg lived with him in #2 for a period. Mr. Holmstrom was aware that Ms. Oyunchimeg was living in #2 because Mr. Holmstrom would perform repairs to the unit while she was there. Mr. Holmstrom also expressly agreed that Ms. Oyunchimeg could park in his tandem spot, behind Mr. Luigi’s 2 cars.

Ms. Oyunchimeg signed a Tenant Estoppel Certificate for #2 on May 26, 2016. (Exhibit 134.) The Certificate indicates that Mr. Luigi is entitled to one parking spot. It also indicates that he is responsible for all utilities, except water.

Plaintiff next introduced deposition testimony from Akina Gerber. (Exhibit 207.) Ms. Gerber moved into 543 Landfair, #6, in August 2015. She testified that Mr. Holmstrom told her that her rent was only $600 per month, not the $1,300 specified in her lease. The lease was not admitted into evidence. Ms. Gerber signed a Tenant Estoppel Certificate in May of 2016. (Exhibit 54.) The Certificate indicated that although her lease said there was no parking space included in the tenancy, one had been provided.

According to Plaintiff’s counsel, the import of Ms. Gerber’s testimony was to establish the existence of a lease. (Transcript, 83:11-85:17.) There was no evidence presented as to the circumstances of Ms. Gerber’s signing the lease.

Plaintiff next introduced deposition testimony from Yuanina Subandrio. (Exhibit 208.) Ms. Subandrio lived at 540 Glenrock, #8 from February 2008 to April 2018. She worked for Jia Shen, finding tenants for Ms. Shen’s rental properties. At some point, Ms. Shen asked Ms. Subandrio to list one of her two units, a studio located next door to Mr. Holmstrom’s unit. Ms. Shen instructed her to list the unit for $1,400-$1,600 per month. Ms. Shen paid $1,200 for the unit. Ultimately, Ms. Subandrio found a subtenant for the unit.

When Ms. Subandrio moved into #8, she moved in as a roommate of Avais Chughtai. She lived there with Ms. Chughtai and another woman, Ananda. Mr. Holmstrom was aware of the situation. Ms. Subandrio did not sign a lease agreement.

Plaintiff called Defendant, Daniel Sacilotto. Mr. Sacilotto lives in 543 Landfair, #3, having moved there in June of 2015. Mr. Sacilotto signed a lease at the request of Mr. Holmstrom. (Exhibit 506.) Pursuant to the lease, he pays for all the unit’s utilities except for water. Mr. Sacilotto also signed a Tenant Estoppel Certificate on May 28, 2016. (Exhibit 129.) Mr. Sacilotto previously lived at 543 Landfair, #1. He signed a lease for that unit, too.

Mr. Sacilotto testified that Mr. Holmstrom granted him permission to sublet #3, despite the lease’s provision to the contrary. He has nothing in writing to memorialize this permission. He advertised the unit in Craigslist for sublet the summer months of 2014 at $1,000 per month. (Exhibit 136.) He sublet #3 6-7 times but has not sublet it since the end of 2017.

Mr. Akhavi testified that he put up lattice work on the railings of the Landfair building because he saw Defendant, Nadia Saban, pull up in her car and enter her unit with a child on more than one occasion. (Exhibit 162.) On cross, Mr. Akhavi testified that he put the mesh up because there were children in the buildings, not just because he had seen Ms. Saban there with a child.

Yavuz Ertas formerly occupied 543 Landfair, #4, pursuant to a written lease (Exhibit 29.) He executed a Tenant Estoppel Certificate. (Exhibit 130/6-9.)

Mr. Akhavi does not agree that Jessica Caldera is entitled to live in 543 Landfair, #8. Nor does he agree that the unit is entitled to free electricity and gas. The unit, like all units in the buildings, is separately metered for both electricity and gas. Mr. Akhavi has never received or paid bills for Paola Caldera’s unit gas or electricity. He does not agree #8 is entitled to a parking space.

Ms. Zhou told him that she had a lease requiring the landlord to replace her broken refrigerator. She told him she could not find the lease.

An individual once answered Mr. Larousse’s apartment door and introduced himself to Mr. Akhavi as Mr. Larousse’s roommate. He invited Mr. Akhavi in and then laid down on one of 2 beds in the studio apartment.

Mr. Luigi told him either that he did not have a lease or could not find one. Mr. Akhavi obtained a copy of the lease from the Housing Department in response to his inquiry regarding a complaint Mr. Luigi had filed against him.

Since acquiring the buildings, ACA has caused all new tenants to pay for parking spots.

Since acquiring the buildings, ACA has been able to turn over all of the buildings’ 26 units but for Defendants’ and 2 others.

Plaintiff called Ghizal Hasan. Mr. Hasan has lived in 543 Landfair, #9 since August 2007. Mr. Holmstrom requested that he sign a lease. He cannot find a copy of the lease. He was responsible for all utilities except water.

Defendants called Damian Akhavi. Mr. Akhavi testified that he had not accepted rent checks from several tenants who have since moved out of the buildings. On cross-exam, Mr. Akhavi testified that he ultimately accepted rent checks from a couple of tenants.

Defendants introduced deposition testimony from Arnold Subandrio. He moved into 540 Glenrock, #8, in 2009 with his wife and her friends, who already occupied the unit. The friends moved out in 2011. Neither he nor his wife signed a lease.

At this point, the parties rested. The Court requested briefing on the issues, which the parties submitted, and the Court reviewed. The Court now rules:

Code of Civil Procedure Section 1060 grants the Court authority to make a declaration of rights. Section 1060 provides,

“Any person … who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another, or in respect to, in, over or upon property … may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action or cross-complaint in the superior court for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises, including a determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or contract. He or she may ask for a declaration of rights or duties, either alone or with other relief; and the court may make a binding declaration of these rights or duties, whether or not further relief is or could be claimed at the time. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect, and the declaration shall have the force of a final judgment. The declaration may be had before there has been any breach of the obligation in respect to which said declaration is sought.”

Plaintiff had the burden of proving the terms and conditions of each tenancy at issue. (Evid. Code, § 500.) To prevail, Plaintiff had to present evidence of such by a preponderance of the evidence. (Evid. Code, §§ 115, 520; Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1658, 1667.)

Plaintiff put on mixed evidence on the issue of Myron Holmstrom’s having tenants sign AAGLA leases. Plaintiff established through both testimony and exhibits that Mr. Holmstrom had each of the following tenants and former tenants sign an AAGLA lease: Paul Luigi, Paulos Zecharia, Daniel Sacilotto, and Yavuz Ertas.

Plaintiff established through testimony that Mr. Holstrom had each of the following tenants and former tenants sign a lease (without evidence that it was an AAGLA lease): Oman Celik (twice), Ghizal Hasan, Daniel Sacilotto (upon his first tenancy), and Aquina Gerber.

Defendants, Paola Caldera, Min Zhou, Nima Razfar, Nadia Saban, Arnold Larousse, and Yuanina Subandrio, all testified, with mixed credibility, that Mr. Holmstrom never requested they sign a lease.

David Bessler testified that in assisting Rita Seifer, Plaintiff’s predecessor owner, he looked for leases for the properties but could not locate any.

Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds that Plaintiff did not establish that Myron Holmstrom had a custom and practice of having tenants sign Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (AAGLA) form leases such that all tenants in the buildings should be bound by such form lease’s terms. There are 26 units in the 2 buildings. Plaintiff offered proof of Mr. Holmstrom’s having requested 9 tenants to sign leases between 2002-2015; Plaintiff produced 4 of these leases. Even assuming there was no turnover of tenants in these units over those 13 years, which there was, these 9 leases represent a minority of tenants. Moreover, there is no evidence suggesting Mr. Holmstrom only used AAGLA form leases when leases were signed.

Simply stated, Plaintiff did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Myron Holmstrom had a custom and practice of having tenants sign AAGLA form leases.

B. Plaintiff established that Defendants Paul Luigi and Daniel Sacilotto signed AAGLA form leases

Plaintiff established that Paul Luigi and Daniel Sacilotto signed AAGLA form leases. (Exhibits 506 and 157, respectively.) The Court finds that these individuals are bound by the terms of those leases.

1. The Court finds the issue of whether the AAGLA leases prohibited Mr. Luigi or Mr. Sacilotto from subletting or having roommates is moot.

Plaintiff put on no evidence that either Mr. Luigi or Mr. Sacilotto were currently subletting their units or that they currently had roommates. Accordingly, the Court finds that the issues are moot as there is no actual controversy on these issues. Declaratory relief may not be awarded if there is no justiciable controversy. A party cannot seek declaratory judgment to secure judicial answers to questions that are merely theoretical, hypothetical, academic, or abstract. “Declaratory judgment statutes do not authorize the courts to give advisory opinions.” (Wilson v. Transit Authority of Sacramento (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 716, 722.)

C. Plaintiff established that Tenant Estoppel Certificates were signed by or on behalf of Defendants Paola Caldera, Jessica Caldera, Mian Guo, Jia Shen, Yunying Li, Min Zhou, Nadia Saban, Lebiba Saban, Arnaud Larousse, and Yavuz Ertas

Plaintiff established that the following Defendants signed Tenant Estoppel Certificates for the following units:

When a tenant signs an estoppel certificate, the certificate reveals the present intent and understanding of the parties as to their rights and responsibilities under a lease. “An ‘estoppel certificate’ is a signed certification of various matters with respect to a lease [citation]. An estoppel certificate binds the signatory to the statements made and estops that party from claiming to the contrary at a later time.” (Plaza Freeway Ltd. P’ship v. First Mountain Bank (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 616, 626.) As discussed above, Plaintiff dismissed the Sixth Cause of Action against Mian Guo, Jia Shen, Yunging Li, Yavuz Ertas, Ali Razfar, and Ganchimeg Oyunchimeg and the Court makes no findings as to their tenancies. The Court finds that

Defendants, Nadia Saban, Lily Saban, Paola Caldera, Min Zhou, and Arnaud Larousse are bound by the terms of the Certificates, including the number of parking spaces provided and responsibility for utilities, as specified in the Certificates.[2]

1. The Tenant Estoppel Certificates do not prohibit roommates or subletting

While the Tenant Estoppel Certificates require an attestation that the tenant has not transferred any interest in the lease as of the time of signing the Certificate, the Certificates do not contain any prohibition against subsequently obtaining roommates or subletting a unit.

2. The Tenant Estoppel Certificates do not prohibit conducting businesses out of the units

Plaintiff urges the Court to find that Nadia Saban and Arnaud Larousse should be in violation of their tenancies because they “operated businesses” out of their units. The Court finds that the Tenant Estoppel Certificates do not contain any prohibition against operating a business out of a unit.

The Court finds that the issue of tenants operating a business out of their units is moot. Although Ms. Saban testified that she used her apartment address in registering her nanny business and Mr. Akhavi testified that while perched across the street from her unit for a significant period he saw Ms. Saban at her apartment coming or going with a child, the Court finds that that evidence did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Saban “operated” a business out of her apartment.

Arnaud Larousse testified that he obtained a business license using his address for an on-line business selling accessories for musical instruments. He maintained a small stock of such items in his apartment. He stopped doing business in 2018. The Court finds no basis for Plaintiff to prohibit this activity. Plaintiff makes no showing that the Mr. Larousse’s activities created any traffic to or from his apartment, or that his product shipments were anything beyond any other resident’s use of, say Amazon or UPS. More important, however, Plaintiff established that the business activity had ended.

The Court finds that there is nothing in either Ms. Saban’ or Mr. Larousse’s cases for the Court to decide. As explained above, declaratory relief may be awarded only where there is a justiciable controversy. (Wilson v. Transit Authority of Sacramento, supra, 199 Cal.App.2d at 722.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to establish that Nima Razfar signed either a lease or a Tenant Estoppel Certificate. Under the circumstances, Mr. Razfar’s tenancy is a simple month-to-month tenancy. (Civil Code § 1944.)

Defendants Paul Luigi and Daniel Sacilotto signed AAGLA form leases, and these individuals are bound by the terms of those leases.

Defendants, Nadia Saban, Lily Saban, Paola Caldera, Min Zhou, and Arnaud Larousse all signed Tenant Estoppel Certificates and these Defendants are bound by the terms of the Certificates, including the number of parking spaces provided and responsibility for utilities, as specified in the Certificates. The Court makes no such finding as to Mian Guo, Jia Shen, Yunging Li, Yavuz Ertas, Ali Razfar, or Ganchimeg Oyunchimeg, whom Plaintiff dismissed from the 6th Cause of Action prior to trial.

The Tenant Estoppel Certificates do not prohibit roommates or subletting, nor do they prohibit conducting businesses out of the units.

Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the 7th cause of action is GRANTED as to Ming Guo, Jia Shen, Yunying Li, Yavuz Ertas, Ali Razfar, and Ganchimeg Oyunchimeg.

Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the 7th cause of action is DENIED as to Paul Luigi, Daniel Sacilotto, Paola Caldera, Jessica Caldera, Min Zhou, Nadia Saban, Lily Saban, Arnaud Larousse, and Nima Razfar.

Defendants DOE 101 Paola Caldera (“P. Caldera”), DOE 102 Mian Guo erroneously sued as Mian Gvo (“Guo”), DOE 103 Jia Shen (“Shen”), DOE 104 Yunying Li erroneously sued as Yun Ying Li (“Li”), DOE 105 Min Zhou (“Zhou”), DOE 112 Yavuz Ertas (“Ertas”), DOE 113 Nima Razfar (“Nima” or “N. Razfar”), DOE 114 Ali Razfar (“Ali” or “A. Razfar”), DOE 115 Jessica Caldera (“J. Caldera”), DOE 116 Nadia Saban (“Nadia”), DOE 117 Lebiba Saban erroneously sued as Lily Saban (“Lebiba”), DOE 118 Paul Luigi (“Luigi”), DOE 119 Ganchimeg Oyunchimeg erroneously sued as JanChungOzu (“Oyunchimeg”), DOE 120 Daniel Sacilotto (“Sacilotto”), and DOE 121 Arnaud Larousse erroneously sued as Arnald LaRousse (“Larousse”) (collectively, “Defendants”) move for judgment on the pleadings as to the 7th cause of action alleged in the second amended complaint (“SAC”) filed by Plaintiff A.C.A. LLC (“Plaintiff”).

On December 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Defendant Myron Holmstrom (“Holstrom”) and DOES 1-200, alleging causes of action for (1) declaratory relief, (2) rescission and restitution, (3) ejectment, (4) trespass, (5) breach of fiduciary duty, (6) false promise, (7) concealment, (8) intentional misrepresentation, (9) intentional interference with contractual relations, (10) breach of contract, (11) professional negligence, and (12) Business and Profession Code §17200, in which the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 12th causes of action were asserted against all Defendants, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd causes of action were asserted against all Defendants except DOES 1-100, the 10th cause of action was asserted only against Holmstrom, and the 9th cause of action was asserted against all Defendants except Holmstrom. Plaintiff thereafter filed numerous DOE Amendments to the complaint, as well as requests for dismissals of certain causes of action against Holmstrom and certain DOE Defendants. Plaintiff’s complaint is based on allegations that Rita Seifer (“Seifer”), who owned certain real property buildings which share a border and are located at 540 Glenrock Avenue (“Glenrock Property”) and 543 Landfair Avenue (“Landfair Property”) (collectively “Buildings”) prior to Plaintiff’s purchase of them, assigned her claims against Holmstrom (the Buildings’ property manager) and his alleged co-conspirators (the tenants of the Buildings, moving Defendants) to Plaintiff in an assignment dated December 12, 2016 (“Assignment”), and that Holmstrom allegedly engaged in a scheme whereby he would charge tenants less than market rent, retain half of the rent, and send the remainder to Seifer as landlord.

On April 19, 2018, DOES 101-105 filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Akhavi (collectively, “Cross-Defendants”). On April 20, 2018, DOES 101-105 filed a first amended cross-complaint (“FACC”). On August 9, 2018, J. Caldera, Ertas, Larousse, Luigi, Lebiba, Nadia, Ali, and Nima (collectively, “DOES 112-118, 121”) filed a complaint against Cross-Defendants in a separate action, Case No. BC717036, alleging the same four causes of action as in the FACC. On February 11, 2020, the Court ordered the instant action and BC717036 consolidated. On March 27, 2020, DOES 101-105 filed a second amended cross-complaint (“SACC”) alleging the same four causes of action against Cross-Defendants. On September 14, 2020, the Court granted Oyunchimeg’s ex parte application for leave to file a third amended cross-complaint (“TACC”) to include DOE Defendant names inadvertently omitted from the SACC. The TACC was thereafter filed on September 15, 2020.

On September 11, 2020, the Court granted the motion for summary adjudication brought by DOES 101-105 as to Issues Nos. 2-7 and denied the motion as to Issues Nos. 1 and 8. Accordingly, the Court granted DOES 101-105’s motion for summary adjudication as to the original complaint’s 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th, 11th, and 12th causes of action, while the 2nd and 5th causes of action remained in the operative pleading. On December 10, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended verified complaint in part. Specifically, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend the 1st (declaratory relief), 4th (trespass), 5th (breach of fiduciary duty), 6th (false promise), 11th (professional negligence), and 12th (Section 17200) causes of action and denied leave to amend as to the 2nd (recission and restitution), 3rd (ejectment), 7th (concealment), 8th (intentional misrepresentation), 9th (intentional interference with contractual relations), and 10th (breach of contract) causes of action.

On January 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleging the following causes of action: (1) declaratory relief [as to all Defendants except DOES 1-100]; (2) ejectment [as to all Defendants except DOES 101-105], (3) trespass [as to all Defendants except DOES 101-105], (4) breach of fiduciary duty [as to all Defendants], (5) intentional interference with contractual relations [as to all Defendants except DOES 101-105], (6) declaratory relief (in the alternative) [as to all Defendants], (7) breach of contract (in the alternative) [as to all Defendants], and (8) declaratory relief (in the alternative) [as to all Defendants]. On May 13, 2021, the Court overruled Defendants’ demurrer to the FAC’s 1st and 6th causes of action and sustained the demurrer as to the 7th cause of action (with leave to amend) and 8th cause of action (without leave to amend).

On June 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative SAC alleging the following causes of action: (1) declaratory relief [as to all Defendants except DOES 1-100]; (2) ejectment [as to all Defendants except Caldera, Guo, Shen, Li, and Zhou (collectively, “DOES 101-105”)], (3) trespass [as to all Defendants except DOES 101-105], (4) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty [as to all Defendants], (5) intentional interference with contractual relations [as to all Defendants except DOES 101-105], (6) declaratory relief (in the alternative) [as to all Defendants], and (7) breach of contract (in the alternative) [as to all Defendants].

On October 24, 2022, this Court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication as to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th causes of action and as to Issues Nos. 2, 5, and 6, and denied summary adjudication as to the 6th and 7th causes of action and as to Issue No. 7. This Court did not reach Issue Nos. 1, 3, or 4.

On February 15, 2023, this Court ruled on Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, denying the motion as to the 6th and 7th causes of action.

On August 7, 2023, this Court held a trial on the 6th cause of action for declaratory relief.

Prior to the trial on the 6th Cause of Action, Plaintiff dismissed the 6th cause of action against Ming Guo, Jia Shen, Yunying Li, Yavuz Ertas, Ali Razfar, and Ganchimeg Oyunchimeg (collectively, “Dismissed Defendants”). In light of the dismissal, the Court made no findings as to the nature of the Dismissed Defendants’ tenancies.

Defendants filed the instant motion on September 27, 2023. Plaintiff filed an opposition on October 16, 2023. Defendants filed their reply on October 20, 2023.

The grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or be based on facts the court may judicially notice. (C.C.P §438(d); Tung v. Chicago Title Co. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 734, 758-759.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings lies where the complaint shows on its face it is barred by the statute of limitations, and therefore does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (See Hunt v. County of Shasta (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 432, 440.)

Plaintiff’s breach of contract cause of action is stated in the alternative, in the event the Court finds any valid tenancies. (SAC ¶278.) Plaintiff alleges the following: (1) Defendants entered into the written leases, orally modified to pay Holmstrom more, set forth in Paragraphs 87, 111, 134, 143, 164, 190, 208, 223, 238, and 249; (2) Plaintiff and Seifer did all things the written leases required; (3) Defendants failed to pay the rents due in the amount determined in the 6th (declaratory relief) cause of action from January 1, 2012 (or the move-in date, if later) to June 2, 2021 in the following amounts [plus all permissible rent increases requested in Paragraph 276(e), minus any amounts Defendants can prove were deposited in Seifer’s account]: (a) Caldera failed to pay $1,600 per month for 66 months, (b) Shen and Guo failed to pay $2,000 per month for 102.5 months, (c) Li and Zhou failed to pay $1,600 for 61.5 months, (d) Ertas failed to pay $1,700 for 56 months, (e) Nima failed to pay $800 for 114 months, (f) Ali failed to pay $1,600 for 66 months, (g) the Sabans failed to pay $1,600 for 66 months, (h) Luigi [and Oyunchimeg if found to be lawful tenant] failed to pay $1,700 for 114 months, (i) Sacilotto failed to pay $2,000 for 73 months, (j) LaRousse failed to pay $1,500 for 114 months; (4) Plaintiff requests additional unpaid rent until date of judgment plus permissible rent increases; and (5) Defendants sublet and ran businesses in violation of the terms of the agreements damaging Plaintiff. (SAC ¶¶278-282.)

This Court previously ruled on Defendants’ argument regarding the statute of limitations in the February 15, 2023, ruling on the motion for judgment on the pleadings. (2/15/23 Minute Order, pgs. 5-6.) Therefore, the Court will not revisit Defendants’ argument regarding the applicable statute of limitations.

Prior to the trial on the 6th Cause of Action, Plaintiff dismissed the 6th Cause of action against the Dismissed Defendants (Ming Guo, Jia Shen, Yunying Li, Yavuz Ertas, Ali Razfar, and Ganchimeg Oyunchimeg). In light of the dismissal, the Court made no findings as to the nature of the Dismissed Defendants’ tenancies. Plaintiff’s 7th Cause of Action seeks to recover for the breaches of the terms of the tenancies determined by the Court in the 6th Cause of Action. Because the Court made no such findings as to the Dismissed Defendants, the 7th Cause of Action fails to state a cause of action as to them. Therefore, as to the Dismissed Defendants, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and enters judgment in their favor.

The Court found that Paul Luigi and Daniel Sacilotto both signed written leases. Plaintiff’s 7th Cause Action may proceed as to them.

As to Paola Caldera, Jessica Caldera, Min Zhou, Nadia Saban, Lily Saban, and Arnaud Larousse, the Court found that these individuals were bound by the terms of Certificates of Estoppel signed by them or on their behalf. The Court finds that the 7th Cause of Action is pled broad enough to encompass a breach of the tenancy agreement prescribed by the Certificates of Estoppel, and so denies Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to them.

As to Nima Razfar, the Court found that his tenancy was a month-to-month tenancy. The Court finds that the 7th Cause of Action is pled broad enough to encompass a breach of the month-to-month tenancy agreement, and so denies Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to him.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the 7th cause of action is GRANTED as to Ming Guo, Jia Shen, Yunying Li, Yavuz Ertas, Ali Razfar, and Ganchimeg Oyunchimeg, and DENIED as to Paul Luigi, Daniel Sacilotto, Paola Caldera, Jessica Caldera, Min Zhou, Nadia Saban, Lily Saban, Arnaud Larousse, and Nima Razfar.

Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the 7th cause of action is GRANTED as to Ming Guo, Jia Shen, Yunying Li, Yavuz Ertas, Ali Razfar, and Ganchimeg Oyunchimeg.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] Plaintiff did not establish that anyone other than Paola Caldera currently occupies #8.

[2] The Court makes no such finding as to Mian Guo, Jia Shen, Yunying Li, or Yavuz Ertas, whom Plaintiff dismissed from the 6^th Cause of Action prior to trial.