Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV04382, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04382    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

CLPF Crescent Park, LP v. Shelby Emerald, Case No. 23SMCV04382

Hearing Date March 21, 2024

Defendant Shelby Emerald’s Trial Brief (Motion to Dismiss/MJOP)

In this unlawful detainer case, defendant Emerald argues plaintiff CLPF Crescent Park, LP fails to comply with the City of Los Angeles’ Just Cause for Evictions Ordinance (JCEO) notice requirement LAMC §165.05B(5). Though titled “Trial Brief,” defendant in essence makes a motion to dismiss/motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the court will treat it as such.

Under the JCEO, “[a] copy of any written notice terminating a tenancy shall be filed with the Department within three business days of service on the tenant.” LAMC §165.05B(5), emphasis added. Failure to comply with this provision – or any provision of JCEO— may be raised as an affirmative defense by the tenant. LAMC §165.07.

Emerald argues CLPF did not timely file notice with LAHD, serving her with a notice to pay rent or quit on August 16, 2023, but waiting until January 16, 2024 to file the required notice with LAHD. Emerald argues that even if “substantial compliance” is sufficient to fulfill the requirements of §165.05(B)(5), CLPF’s notice was tardy by approximately five months, and therefore did not substantially comply with the statutory requirement.

"Unlawful detainer is a highly specialized form of litigation. Highly summary in nature, the code requirements must be followed strictly, otherwise a landlord's remedy is an ordinary suit for breach of contract with all the delays that that remedy normally involves and without restitution of the demised property." Cal-American Income Property Fund IV. v. Ho (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 583, 585. Strict compliance is required.

Regarding the notice, plaintiff landlord submits the declaration of Patrick Strong, its Regional Property manager, who stated:

Para. 11. “I don’t remember the exact date” but I “determined this date to be 8/18/23”

Para. 13. He filled out the (notice to LAHD) form and took it to mailbox that same day.

Para. 14. He didn’t upload the notice because Community Manager Williams’ computer was locked.

Para. 15. He didn’t make a copy of the notice I sent to LAHD.

Para. 17. He called LAHD and “could not confirm receipt or logging of the notice.” (The declaration does not state the date Strong made the call, nor to whom he spoke.)

Para. 18. He uploaded the notice on 1/16/24. This notice of 1/16/24 does appear on the LAHD website, per defendant’s papers.

The court agrees with defendant’s argument that a five-month delay in providing notice to the Housing Department is not “substantial compliance.” The statute imposes a time requirement of “three business days[.]” If the court were to treat a filing made five months after the statutory period as effective, the statute’s time limit would be rendered void.

Plaintiff admits in its complaint that the JCEO applies to this action. Complaint ¶16. The complaint does not allege, however, that plaintiff complied with this requirement by filing a timely notice with the LAHD. No copy of the notice is attached, nor is its filing pled in the complaint.

Even if the complaint alleged compliance with 165.05B(5), plaintiff cannot prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it complied with the statute’s service requirement. Strong’s declaration admits he does not remember the exact date he allegedly mailed the notice to the LAHD, and only determined August 18, 2023 as the date “[b]y a process of reviewing [his] calendar. Strong decl. ¶ 11.

He admits he did not upload the notice on that date and made no copy of the notice he mailed. Strong decl. ¶¶14-15. He admits LAHD could not provide him any record of the notice having been received. Strong decl. ¶17. The court notes he did not state who he spoke to or the date of the call.

Because of these deficiencies, plaintiff cannot establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the notice was timely filed, as required by the JCEO (LAMC 165.05B(5)).

The court will hear from plaintiff regarding alleged compliance, including via hearing pursuant to Evid. Code 402.