Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV00416, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00416    Hearing Date: May 19, 2023    Dept: A

MOTION TO DISMISS

ALLEGATIONS: 

On February 22, 2023, N.K. Studio City, LLC (“Plaintiff”) brought this unlawful detainer action against Svetlana Kleiman (“Kleiman”) & Vishnevskij Kirill (“Kirill”) (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff seeks approximately $36,300 in unpaid rent pursuant to a lease agreement for the property located at 11170 Agua Vista Street Studio City, CA 91602. Defendants are both in pro per.

Kirill now moves to dismiss the action. It is unclear from Kirill’s filing whether he requests dismissal as to himself or both Defendants.  

HISTORY: 

On April 6, 2023 Kirill filed his motion. On May 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed its response. On April 9, 2023, Kirill filed his reply.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

A basic principle of motion practice is that the moving party must specify for the Court and the opposing party the grounds upon which that party seeks relief.”  (Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal. App. 4th 1119, 1125.)  Notices must state the grounds upon which it will be made. (C.C.P. § 1010, CRC Rule 3.1110(a).) 

California Code of Procedure (“C.C.P.”) § 581 governs when actions can be dismissed. C.C.P. § 581(b) provides:

An action may be dismissed in any of the following instances:

(1)   With or without prejudice, upon written request of the plaintiff to the clerk, filed with papers in the case, or by oral or written request to the court at any time before the actual commencement of trial, upon payment of the costs, if any.

(2)   With or without prejudice, by any party upon the written consent of all other parties.

(3)   By the court, without prejudice, when no party appears for trial following 30 days’ notice of time and place of trial.

(4)   By the court, without prejudice, when dismissal is made pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 583.110).

(5)   By the court, without prejudice, when either party fails to appear on the trial and the other party appears and asks for dismissal.

C.C.P. § 583.410(a) provides “The court may in its discretion dismiss an action for delay in prosecution pursuant to this article on its own motion or on motion of the defendant if to do so appears to the court appropriate under the circumstances of the case.”

II.                 MERITS

The Court notes Kirill does not provide any legal or statutory grounds for his motion to dismiss. Kirill states his motion is based on the lease between the parties being void but cites no legal authority that this may serve as grounds for dismissal. Kirill’s cites to C.C.P. § 473, which describes the procedure for obtaining relief from judgment or dismissal and has no bearing on this motion.  The case to which Kirill cites, J.B. Aguerre, Inc. v. American Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 6, concerns a demurrer and is both factually and procedurally irrelevant. A motion to dismiss is not a proper vehicle in which to address the validity of the lease agreement sued upon.

As such, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.

--- 

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 

Vishnevskij Kirill’s Motion to Dismiss came on regularly for hearing on May 19, 2023, 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 TO DISMISS IS DENIED. 

PLAINTIFF IS TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  May 19, 2023                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge