Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMUD00477, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMUD00477    Hearing Date: February 24, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Bernard Avenue LLC v. Piltan, Case no. 24SMUD00477

Hearing date February 24, 2025

Defendant Piltan’s Motion for New Trial

Plaintiff Bernard Avenue, LLC sued pro per defendant Babak Piltan for unlawful detainer arising from unpaid rent. On 12/9/24 the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor. Defendant moves “for an order (i) setting aside/vacating the judgment entered purportedly pursuant to the special verdict of the jury in this action, and to enter, in its place, the proposed judgment that [defendant] has submitted to the Court, or, alternatively, (ii) for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, (iii) for a new trial.” Mtn. pg. 1. Plaintiff requests judicial notice of the complaint. Per Cal. Evid. Code 452(c); GRANTED.

A motion for new trial may only be granted on the grounds set forth in Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §657: irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party; jury misconduct; accident or surprise; newly discovered "material" evidence; excessive or inadequate damages; insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict; or error in law.

Defendant argues that, as the jury returned a verdict awarding plaintiff $6,141.66 in unpaid rent, not the $6,466.50 noticed by plaintiff, the three-day notice served to defendant demanding the $6,466.50 was defective and cannot form the basis of an unlawful detainer action. See Olivares v. Pineda (2019) 40 253 Cal.Rptr.3d 213. Defendant asserts the court’s judgment in favor of plaintiff is unsupported by the verdict and must be vacated.

The jury made the following special findings: (1) defendant failed to make at least one rental payment to plaintiff as required by the rental agreement; (2) the amount stated in the notice was no more than the amount defendant actually owed; (3) defendant did not attempt to pay the amount stated in the notice within three days after service or receipt of the notice; (4) the amount of rent due from 3/1/23 through the expiration of the notice period was $6,141.66; and (5) the daily rental damages were $6,612.00. This is sufficient for the court to enter judgment as stated.

Plaintiff alleged the amount of rent due through 2/16/24, the date of the expiration of the three-day notice, to be $6,141.66. Compl. para. 19. Plaintiff alleged holdover damages of $301.60, with a slight variation in alleged damages resulting from February having 29 days in 2024. Id. This difference does not invalidate the notice because: (1) the amount is still less than the amount stated in the notice, and (2) understatements of the amount of rent due are not fatal to an eviction action. Cavanaugh v. High (1960) 182 CA.2d 714, 722. California law requires pleading of past due rent and damages separately.

Plaintiff’s alleged damages were properly presented to the jury as separate elements, with the jury awarding plaintiff rent due through the expiration of the three-day notice. Further, the court previously addressed defendant’s arguments at hearing 6/24/24 in denying defendant’s oral motion for judgment on the pleadings. There is no basis to support setting aside the judgment. DENIED.