Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV01384, Date: 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01384    Hearing Date: October 10, 2022    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling
Wu v. Lewis, et al., Case No. 22SMCV01384
Hearing Date October 11, 2022
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on this unlawful detainer failure to pay rent case.

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” 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.

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519. A plaintiff moving for summary judgment “has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the case of action.” Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1). “Once the plaintiff . . . has met that burden, the burden shift to the defendant . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” Ibid. “When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” Ibid.

Plaintiff landlord rented the premises to defendants pursuant to a written two-year lease for $9,000/month in the first year and $10,000/month for the second year. Wu Decl. ¶¶ 6, 3, Ex. 1. Defendants failed to pay rent from April 1, 2022, through August 31, 2022. On August 12, 2022, plaintiff served a three-day notice to pay rent or quit; defendants did not pay and did not vacate by August 17, 2022. Id. ¶¶ 4-6, Ex. 2-3; see also Answers [listing address of premises as defendants’ address]. At the time the three-day notice to pay rent or quit was served, defendants owed $50,000. Complaint ¶ 12, Ex. 2; see also Answer ¶ 2 [admitting all allegations because no exceptions designated]. Defendants have no open Housing is Key application. Complaint ¶ 7.

Plaintiff addresses potential affirmative defenses; the court will not address these arguments, as no opposition was filed, so there is no need to reach defenses which have not been raised.

The fair rental value is $328.77 per day. Complaint ¶ 13; Answer ¶ 2b. Plaintiff is entitled to $328.77 in daily damages from September 1, 2022, to the date judgment is entered. The lease provides for attorney fees. Complaint ¶ 15, Ex. 1 ¶ 36. The memorandum of points and authorities does not state the requested amount for attorney fees and costs, nor do the supporting declarations. The proposed order identifies costs as $345 and attorney fees as $500. As these amounts are unsupported, the court cannot evaluate these claims.

Plaintiff meets his initial burden on summary judgement. As defendants do not oppose, they cannot meet their burden. Motion GRANTED.