Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This is an unlawful detainer action.  The real property at issue is located at 13455 Maxella Avenue, Space No. 206-260 also known as Space No. 260B, located in the City of Marina Del Rey in the County of Los Angeles (the “Premises”).  (Compl. ¶ 7.)  Plaintiff RAR2-Marina Marketplace LLC leased the Premises to Phenix Salon Suites, Marina Del Rey, LLC pursuant to a written commercial lease agreement (“Lease”).  (Id. ¶ 8.)  Phenix then sublet the Premises to Defendants Joseph Hallberg, Linda Adams, and Michael Brown who have been at the space for the past year.  On February 29, 2024, Plaintiff initiated an unlawful detainer action against Phenix and all occupants.   

On May 2, 2024, Hallberg filed a motion to quash, which was denied as untimely on May 23, 2024.  Thereafter, Hallberg filed a demurrer on May 29, 2024, which was overruled on July 5, 2024 because a default had already been entered on May 23, 2024.  Hallberg then attempted to file his answer on July 14, 2024, but it was rejected because the default had already been entered.   

This hearing is on Defendant Joseph Hallberg’s motion to vacate default.  Hallberg argues that default is void because it was entered while his time to file a responsive pleading had not yet passed.  Hallberg claims he had 15 days from the Court’s denial of his motion to quash, or June 7, 2024 to file his responsive pleading.  He filed a demurrer on May 29, 2024.  When the demurrer was overruled on July 14, 2024, Hallberg claims he then had an additional 10 days (or by July 24, 2024) to file his answer.  Hallberg tried to file his answer on July 14, 2024 but it was rejected because of the default.       

DISCUSSION 

The lease naturally expired on April 30, 2024, so setting aside the judgment would make no difference.  For this reason, there is no actual controversy on which to rule.  When a tenant’s¿lease¿expires¿and the tenant presents¿no¿basis for claiming a right to possession after the date the lease expired,¿there is no longer a live¿controversy¿between the parties as to the right of current possession.  If there is no live controversy between the parties, then the motion is moot.  Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to set aside default as moot. 

 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Joseph Hallberg’s motion to vacate default.   

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: September 18, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court