Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This is an unlawful detainer action.  Plaintiff SM 10000 Property LLC (“Landlord”) is the owner of 10000 Santa Monica Blvd, Unit 2801, Los Angeles California (the “Premises”).  (Browne Decl. ¶5.)  Plaintiff entered into a written lease with Defendant Jakob Andersen (“Tenant”) to lease the Premises (the “Lease”).  (Ex. 1 to Browne Decl.)   

The Lease was for 12 months at a monthly rate of $14,500 payable on the first day of each month.  (Ex. 1 to Browne Decl., page 1, section (K).)  Tenant failed to pay rent.  (Browne Decl. ¶8.)  Landlord served a 3 day notice to pay rent or quit.  (Ex. 2 to Browne Decl.)  At the time the notice was served, the amount of rent due was $21,624.90.  (Id.)  As of the expiration of the three day notice, the Tenant failed to pay rent and remains in possession of the Premises.  (Browne Decl. ¶¶ 9, 10.) 

Under the Lease, Tenant is to pay 100% of electricity service which is separately supplied and metered to the Premises and 100% of the technology service which includes cable and internet at the beginning of each calendar month.  Tenant is also required under the Lease to pay for his two storage units, electrical vehicle charging fees, late fees and guest parking fees (collectively “Other Charges”).  (Browne Decl. ¶ 13.)     

A late fee of $400 is charged under the Lease if rent remains unpaid on the fifth day following the due date.  Tenant owes $2,800 in late fees for failing to pay rent in full for the months of March through September 2023.  (Browne Decl. ¶ 13.) 

Tenant has failed to pay the full amount of his rent, electricity charges, technology services and Other Charges owed for March 2023 and for any subsequent months.  (Browne Decl. ¶ 14.)  These amounts total $116,342.34.  (Ex. 3 to Browne Decl.) 

This hearing is on Landlord’s motion for summary judgment against Tenant.  Landlord argues it is entitled to summary judgment because there is no triable issue as to (1) the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, (2) Tenant’s wrongful occupation of the Premises, (3) proper service of all required notices, and (4) Tenant’s default in the payment of rent.  No opposition was filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.   

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 claim or affirmative defense and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial.  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Ritchfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  Code Civ. Proc. §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. Minor 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).   

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment must satisfy its initial burden of proof by presenting facts to establish each essential element of the claim.  (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.)  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.)   

It is not plaintiff’s initial burden to disprove affirmative defenses and cross-complaints asserted by defendant.  (Oldcastle Precast Inc. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 554, 565; see also Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 853¿(“summary judgment law in this state no longer requires a plaintiff moving for summary judgment to disprove any defense asserted by the defendant as well as prove each element of his own cause of action. … All that the¿plaintiff need do is to ‘prove[] each element of the cause of action.’”); Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before¿Trial (The Rutter Group 2008) ¶ 10:235, p. 10-89 (rev. # 1, 2006) (when plaintiff moves for summary judgment “[u]nlike former law, it is not plaintiff's initial burden to disprove affirmative defenses and cross-complaints asserted by defendant”).) 

Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.  (Id.)  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.)  

In an unlawful detainer action, a party may move for summary judgment at any time after the answer is filed.  (Code Civ. Proc. §1170.7.)  A motion for summary judgment may be made upon giving five (5) days’ notice.  (Id.)  No separate statement is required.  (Code Civ. Proc. 437c(s))  And a motion for summary judgment in an unlawful detainer action shall be granted or denied on the same basis as a summary judgment motion brought under § 437c.  (Code Civ. Proc. §1170.7.)   

DISCUSSION 

Landlord argues it has met its burden of showing all essential elements of a prima facie case for unlawful detainer.  The Court agrees. 

The prima facie¿elements of an¿unlawful detainer action for nonpayment of rent are: (1) the existence of tenancy; (2) breach or default by the tenant; (3) proper¿notice to pay rent or quit and service thereof; (4) the tenant's failure to comply; and (5) the tenant's current¿occupation of the premises. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161, subd. (2).)  Landlord has met all these elements.  

First, a landlord tenant relationship was created on August 29, 2022 when Tenant signed the Lease.  (Browne Decl. ¶ 6.)  Second, Tenant defaulted by failing to pay rent, fees and Other Charges.  (Id. ¶ 8.)  Third, Landlord posted a 3 day notice on April 19, 2023 to the door of the Premises and mailed it on April 28, 2023.  (Id. ¶ 4.)  Code Civ. Proc. § 1162(a)(3) permits a three day notice to pay rent or quit to be served by posting a copy in a conspicuous place on the property and also sending a copy through the mail addressed to the occupant at the place where the property is situated.  Fourth, Tenant failed to comply with the 3 day notice.  (Id. ¶¶ 9, 10.)  Fifth, Tenant continues to occupy the Premises.  (Id. ¶ 10.)   

Accordingly, Landlord is entitled to possession of the Premises and unpaid rent, electricity charges, technology fees, late fees and Other Charges in the amount of $116,342.34 through October 1, 2023.  Plaintiff is also entitled to damages at the rate of $483.33 per day from November 1, 2023 to the date of entry of judgment.  (Id. ¶ 12.) 

Additionally, under the Lease, “in the event of litigation to enforce this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees, not to exceed a total of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), and additionally, its costs of litigation.”  (Ex. 1 to Browne Decl. page 10 ¶ 34.)  Here, by virtue of prevailing on its motion for summary judgment, Landlord is the prevailing party, and based on the declaration of its counsel, those fees total $19,819 and its costs total $2,050.97.  (Goodman Decl. ¶¶ 2-4.)  The fees are calculated based on an hourly rate of $275 for partners, $250 for associates and $135 for paralegals.  (Id. ¶ 2.)  The Court concludes these hourly rates are reasonable.  However, the attached bills do not specify the amount of time spent for each task and each type of cost sought, and accordingly the Court denies the request for attorneys’ fees and costs.   

Finally, Landlord also seeks prejudgment interest.  An award of prejudgment interest is mandatory when the damages are “certain” or “capable of being made certain by calculation.”  (Civ. Code § 3287 subd. (a).)  In the absence of a contractual rate of interest, the rate of prejudgment interest is 10% per annum.  (Civ. Code. §3289 subd. (b).)  Interest commences on the first day there exists both a breach and a liquidated claim.  (Maurice L. Bein Inc. v. Housing Auth. Of City of Los Angeles (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 670, 686.)  Thus, SM 10000 is entitled to prejudgment interest of 10% per annum starting March 6, 2023, the date Tenant was first in breach, for a total amount of $4,051.82.  (Goodman Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; Ex. 4 to Goodman Decl.)   

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff SM10000 Property LLC’s motion for summary judgment.  Judgment is awarded in favor of Plaintiff in the total amount of $116,342.34, plus $483.33 per day until this Judgment is entered, plus $4,051.82 in prejudgment interest.    

 

DATED:  October 31, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court