Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22PDUD00466, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PDUD00466    Hearing Date: August 25, 2022    Dept: A

ALLEGATIONS:

Plaintiff Santa Anita Shoppingtown LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership ("Plaintiff") filed a commercial unlawful detainer against Defendant AM Santa Anita Partners, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, d.b.a. Charleys Philly Steaks ("Defendant") on March 24, 2022.

HISTORY:

The Court received the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff on July 11, 2022. The Court has not received any opposition or reply.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment; or, in the alternative, summary adjudication as to each affirmative defense asserted by Defendant.

ANALYSIS:

I.          LEGAL STANDARD

A party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding. (CCP § 437c(a).) To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the evidence submitted must show there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (CCP § 437c(c).) In other words, the opposing party cannot present contrary admissible evidence to raise a triable factual dispute.

“A plaintiff or cross-complainant 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 cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The defendant or cross-defendant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (CCP § 437c(p)(1).)

When ruling on a summary judgment motion, the trial court must consider all inferences from the evidence, even those contradicted by the moving party’s evidence. The motion cannot succeed unless the evidence leaves no room for conflicting inferences as to material facts; the court has no power to weigh one inference against another or against other evidence. (Murillo v. Rite Stuff Food Inc. (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th 833, 841.) In determining whether the facts give rise to a triable issue of material fact, "the facts alleged in the evidence of the party opposing summary judgment and the reasonable inferences there from must be accepted as true.” (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 171, 179.)

With a summary judgment motion, a three-step analysis is required of the trial court. (AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker Nat’l Bank (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 1061, 1064–65.) First, the trial court must identify the issues framed by the pleadings since it is these allegations to which the motion must respond by establishing a complete defense or otherwise showing there is no factual basis for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent’s pleading. (Ibid.) Secondly, the court must determine whether the moving party’s showing has established facts which negate the opponent’s claim and justify a judgment in movant’s favor. (Ibid.) When a summary judgment motion prima facie justifies a judgment, the third and final step is to determine whether the opposition demonstrates the existence of a triable, material factual issue. (Ibid.)

II.        MERITS

Plaintiff asserts that it owns the Subject Premises. (Decl. Carter, ¶¶ 2, 4, Exh. A.) Plaintiff shows that the parties entered into a written commercial lease agreement (“Lease Agreement”) for Defendant’s use of the property located at 400 S. Baldwin Avenue, Space No. FC10, Arcadia, California 91007 (“Subject Premises”) for seven years on March 25, 2014; but that Defendant did not vacate the Subject Premises upon the natural expiration of this period on August 31, 2021 and continues to occupy the Subject Premises. (Decl. Carter, ¶¶ 4, 6-8, Exh. A; Decl. Romeu, ¶ 5, Exh. C: RfA No. 2.) Plaintiff also shows that the Lease Agreement requires that any amendment of the lease must be in writing and signed by both parties, and that the lease was never amended. (Decl. Carter, ¶¶ 4, 6, 7, Exh. A at Article 27.02.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied its prima facie burden to establish an unlawful detainer cause of action pursuant to CCP § 1161(1).  There do not appear to be any triable issues of material facts.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c) a failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.  The Defendant declined to file a response.

III.       CONCLUSION

The Court grants the instant motion.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiff Santa Anita Shoppingtown LP’s Motion for Summary Judgment came on regularly for hearing on August 19, 2022, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE:  August 25, 2022                               _______________________________

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                        Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles