Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV07302, Date: 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07302    Hearing Date: January 6, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            This is a landlord-tenant dispute. On February 28, 2022, Plaintiff initiated this action alleging 11 causes of action stemming from Defendants’ alleged failure to abate uninhabitable conditions. On October 21, 2022, Defendants Fariba Cohanim and Echo Park Ave LLC filed the instant motion for summary judgment on the grounds that they purchased the property after Plaintiff had already been evicted and therefore cannot be liable on any cause of action.

LEGAL STANDARD

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.) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (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.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.) 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

            Plaintiff alleges that he was evicted and moved out on February 6, 2021. (Compl. ¶ 60.) The moving Defendants acquired title to the property on June 21, 2021. (Cohanim Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. D, E, H.) Defendants argue that as a matter of law, they cannot be liable on any cause of action because they were not Plaintiff’s landlords during the pertinent time period. Plaintiff now avers in his declaration that he remained a tenant at the time Defendants took ownership of the property. (Bracamonte Decl. ¶ 4.)

            “A defendant moving for summary judgment may rely on the allegations contained in the plaintiff's complaint, which constitute judicial admissions. As such they are conclusive concessions of the truth of a matter and have the effect of removing it from the issues.” (Castillo v. Barrera (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1324.) “[J]udicial admissions in a complaint overcome evidence even if the opposing party seeks to contradict the prior admission.” (Ibid.) “[T]he rule [is] that one may not contradict the allegations of a complaint in response to a summary judgment motion . . . .” (Id. at p. 1326.) Plaintiff’s judicial admission in the complaint is conclusive even though Plaintiff attempts to change the facts with his declaration. Plaintiff even acknowledges in his own brief that a party cannot “try to defeat summary judgment by adding factual claims to create last-minute disputed issues.” (Opp. 9:14-16.)

Plaintiff appears to suggest that his admission is not dispositive because the complaint is made on information and belief. (Plntf.’s Resp. to UF 2.) Plaintiff cites no authority for the proposition that the rule in Castillo can be bypassed by simply pleading on information and belief. If that were true, the rule would be meaningless, as every plaintiff could plead on information and belief and later set forth a different set of facts to avoid summary judgment. Additionally, the fact that Plaintiff was forced to move out is within Plaintiff’s personal knowledge and is not a matter of information and belief. The complaint expressly states that “Plaintiff was evicted from the Subject Property on February 6th, 2021” without any qualification that the allegation is being made on information and belief. (Compl. ¶ 60.)

            Plaintiff also claims that Defendants’ own evidence shows Plaintiff was not evicted until February 2022. (See Cohanim Decl. ¶ 3.) However, Defendants’ evidence shows that the prior owner of the property initiated an unlawful detainer action and obtained an eviction judgment against all remaining tenants, which eviction was completed by February 2022. (Id., ¶ 3, Ex. C, F, G.) The unlawful detainer action was initiated against Tony Sanchez and various Does, with no indication that Plaintiff remained on the premises until February 2022. Plaintiff admitted to being evicted in February 2021, and Defendants’ evidence does not show otherwise. Plaintiff never explains why he admitted to being evicted in February 2021 if he was in fact evicted in February 2022. Plaintiff makes no claim of mistake or error and verified the contents of the complaint as true.

            The undisputed fact that Defendants did not own the property until June 2021 constitutes a complete defense to all causes of action. As a matter of law, Defendants cannot be liable to Plaintiff for causes of action that arose prior to their ownership of the property. Therefore, summary judgment is warranted.

CONCLUSION

            Defendants Fariba Cohanim’s and Echo Park Ave LLC’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.