Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 24SMCV01835, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV01835, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01835 Hearing Date: July 31, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Jeffrey Giudice v. John Riley, et al., Case No. 24SMCV01835

Hearing date July 31, 2024

Plaintiff Giudice’s Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication - UNOPPOSED

This unlawful detainer action is brought by plaintiff landlord Giudice against defendants John Riley and Zander Riley. On January 15, 2020 plaintiff and defendant John Riley entered into a written agreement to rent the premises on a month-to-month basis for $4,588 per month. Complaint, ¶4-6. The rent was changed on February 8, 2024 to $4,863/month. Compliant, ¶ 6(d). Defendants failed to pay outstanding rent or comply with a notice to quit. Complaint, ¶ 9(a)(6) and 19(c). Giudice seeks possession, past due rent of $40,996, forfeiture of the rental agreement, costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees and holdover damages of $162/day from April 1, 2024. Complaint, ¶ 19.

On May 21, 2024, defendant Zander Riley, in pro per, answered. On May 22, 2024, defendant John Riley in pro per, answered.

On July 3, 2024, Giudice filed and served via U.S. mail this motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication on the grounds that there is no triable issue of material fact as to any allegation of the complaint, and defendants have no viable defense. As of July 26, 2024, the motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard/Applicable Law

A motion for summary judgment or adjudication provides “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. It must be granted “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, quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).

In the unlawful detainer context, “[a] motion for summary judgment may be made at any time after the answer is filed upon giving five days notice.” Code Civ. Proc., § 1170.7. “Service must be made by personal delivery, electronic service, fax transmission, express mail, or other means consistent with Code of Civil Procedure sections 1010, 1010.6, 1011, 1012, and 1013, and reasonable calculated to ensure delivery to the other party or parties no later than the close of business on the court day before the hearing.” Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1351(c). “The court, in its discretion, may consider written opposition filed later.” Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1351(c).

“The procedures governing a motion for summary judgment in an unlawful detainer action are streamlined (e.g., separate statements are not required under section 437c, subdivision (s) of the Code of Civil Procedure), but such a motion shall be granted or denied on the same basis as a motion under [Code of Civil Procedure s]ection 437c . . . .” Borden v. Stiles (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 337, 344-345, quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 1170.7. “In moving for summary judgment, a plaintiff . . . has met his burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if he has proved each element of the cause of action entitling him to judgment on that cause of action.” Borden v. Stiles, supra, 92 Cal.App.5th 337, 345, internal quotations omitted, citation omitted. “Once the plaintiff . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.” Id., internal quotations omitted, citation omitted.

Elements for an Unlawful Detainer Based on Nonpayment of Rent

“The basic elements of unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (2), are (1) the tenant is in possession of the premises; (2) that possession is without permission; (3) the tenant is in default for nonpayment of rent; (4) the tenant has been properly served with a written three-day notice; and (5) the default continues after the three-day notice period has elapsed.” Kruger v. Reyes (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 16.

Giudice’s Evidence

Giudice presents evidence defendants are in possession of the property. Giudice Decl., ¶ 23. Giudice owns the property. Giudice Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. 1. Giudice entered into a lease with defendant John Riley on or about January 15, 2020. Giudice Decl., ¶ 9; Ex. 5. In January 2020 and April 2020, defendants failed to make rental payments. Giudice Decl., ¶¶ 13-14; Ex. 6. Defendants have a balance of $60,448 for rent from April through July 2024. Giudice Decl., ¶ 15; Ex. 6.

On February 7, 2024, defendants and all occupants of the property were served with a “30-Day Notice to Pay Rent of Quit.” Adams Decl., ¶¶ 4-5; Ex. 7. On March 6, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel prepared an “Offer of Conditional Extension to the 30-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit” served on February 7, 2024, which extended the notice to pay or quit by 30 days in exchange for defendants’ additional payment of $10,000.00 by March 8, 2024. Adams Decl., ¶ 7; Ex. 21. The offer clarified that partial payment does not constitute waiver of any rights and defendants failed to make any additional payments after March 11, 2024. Adams Decl., ¶ 7; Ex. 21.

On or about April 9, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel’s office prepared the “Notice to Quit (Without Opportunity to Cure),” which provided three days for defendants to deliver possession of the property, which was served on April 10, 2024. Adams Decl., ¶¶ 8-9; Exs. 9-10. Defendants did not respond. Adams Decl., ¶ 10. The notice to quit was issued because of defendants’ failure to comply with the February 7, 2024 thirty day notice to pay rent or quit. Adams Decl., ¶ 8; Ex. 9. Following the failure to vacate after expiration of the notice to quit, Giudice filed the complaint. Adams Decl., ¶ 11. Giudice presents evidence the 30-day notice to pay rent or quit and subsequent notice to quit were properly served. Adams Decl., ¶ 4; Rodriguez Decl., ¶¶ 2-3. Giudice has not received any payment from defendants since March 11, 2024, and he did not waive, change, or cancel the notice to quit. Giudice Decl., ¶¶ 16, 20. Giudice did not accept rental payments from defendants after the notice to quit was served. Giudice Decl., ¶ 22. As of the date of his declaration, defendants remain in possession of the property. Giudice Decl., ¶ 23.

Given that the motion is unopposed, the Court finds defendants have conceded to all arguments raised therein because “[c]ontetions are waived when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority.” Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215.

The plaintiff has met his initial burden on summary judgment with evidence establishing each element for his cause of action for unlawful detainer based on nonpayment of rent. The defendants failed to oppose and failed to provide any responsive evidence. As such, defendants have not met their burden in showing the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to a cause of action or defense thereto. GRANT.