Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 200 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This is a breach of lease case.  Plaintiff Angel Ho is the owner of a condominium located at 13700 Marina Pointe Drive, #1809, Marina del Rey, California 90292.  (Statement of Undisputed Facts (“SUF”) No. 1.)  Plaintiff leased the Property to Defendants Ben Sayani and Valeh Raissi, pursuant to a written lease agreement (the “Lease”).  (SUF No. 4.)  The Lease was extended multiple times, and pursuant to the last extension, it terminated on March 31, 2020.  (Id.)  After termination of the Lease, Defendants remained in possession on a month-to-month basis at the rate of $5,500 per month.  (SUF No. 5.)   

Commencing on March 1, 2020 and through March 1, 2023, Defendants breached the Lease by failing to pay any rent except for $1,375 for the months of October 2021 to February 2022.  (SUF No. 6.)  Defendants claimed they were unable to pay rent due to the COVID 19 pandemic.  (Id.)  But Defendants failed to complete or qualify for any application for rental assistance.  (SUF Nos. 7-13.)  Defendants’ last application was denied because they failed to provide documentation to verify their household income.  (SUF No. 12.)  Defendants remain in possession of the Property, and started to pay rent again in April 2023, but they still owe back rent.    

As a result of Defendants’ breach, Defendants are indebted to Plaintiff in the sum of $196,625 plus interest.  (SUF No. 15.)  Plaintiff has made demand upon Defendants for payment, but Defendants have refused to pay.  (SUF No. 16.)  The Lease provides for prevailing party attorneys’ fees of up to $1,000 and costs.  (SUF No. 18.)  Plaintiff has incurred attorneys’ fees in excess of $1,000. 

The operative complaint alleges claims for breach of the lease and common counts.  There was a claim for fraud, which Plaintiff has now dismissed.   

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiff argues there is no triable issue on its claims, and Defendants’ affirmative defenses either fail as a matter of law or are not supported by the undisputed facts.   

LEGAL STANDARD  

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, the Court engages in a three-step process. First, the Court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.)  Because a motion for summary judgment is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings.  

The court cannot consider an impleaded issue in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.) The papers filed in response to a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment may not create issues outside the pleadings and are not a substitute for an amendment to the pleadings. (Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal. App.4th 1334,1342.) 

Second, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its burden. A moving plaintiff meets its burden by producing evidence to meet each element of its cause(s) of action.  (Code Civ. Proc, § 437c, subd. (p)(1)).)  California law does not require a¿moving plaintiff¿to negate a defendant’s affirmative defenses to satisfy its initial burden. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th at 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”).)¿  

Third, once the moving plaintiff has met its initial burden, the burden shifts to the opposing defendant to show that a material factual issue exists as to the cause(s) of action alleged or the affirmative defense(s) claimed. (Code Civ. Proc.,§ 437c, subd. (p); see generally Bush v. Parents without Partners (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 322, 326-327.) 

In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the opposing party. (Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 843.) Summary judgment is properly granted only if the moving party’s evidence establishes that there is no issue of material fact to be tried. (Lipson v. Super. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 362, 374.) 

DISCUSSION 

Defendants request judicial notice of (1) the Complaint in this action, (2) Plaintiff’s Request for Dismissal of its fraud claim, and (3) Defendants’ Answer.  The Court denies the request.  It is not necessary to seek judicial notice of pleadings in this action.  All that is necessary is to call the Court’s attention to the pleadings.     

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment, not summary adjudication.  Accordingly, if even one claim or defense raises a triable issue, the Court must deny the motion for summary judgment.     

Defendant raises the affirmative defense that Plaintiff is seeking COVID rent debt and it cannot seek such debt pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §871.10, without attaching to its Complaint documentation showing that it made a good faith effort to investigate whether governmental rental assistance is available to the tenant, seek governmental rental assistance for the tenant, or cooperate with the tenant’s efforts to obtain rental assistance from any governmental entity, or other third party.   

In reply, Plaintiff does not dispute that it is seeking COVID rent debt nor that it failed attach to its Complaint the documentation required by section 871.10.  Instead, Plaintiff argues that it is also seeking rent for a period not covered by the COVID rent relief statutes, and it could easily amend its Complaint to include the documentation required by section 871.10.  As to the former argument, the Court notes that Plaintiff is seeking summary judgment, and it cannot prevail on such a motion if even part of its claim raises a triable issue.  As to the latter argument, on a motion for summary judgment, the issues are limited by the pleadings, and the Court cannot consider a hypothetical amended Complaint.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: April 17, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court