Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV01900, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT PER CRC 3.1308

The Court will attempt to post all Tentative Rulings at least the day prior to the hearing by 3:00 p.m.; however, the Court does not post Tentative Rulings for all matters.  

The Court will indicate in the Tentative Ruling whether the Court is requesting oral argument.  For cases where the Court is not requesting argument, then the Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) where the Court requests notice of intent to appear.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, a party seeking argument should notify "all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue."  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is requested.   

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

Notice of the ruling must be served as indicated in the tentative.  Remote appearances are permitted for all law and motion unless otherwise indicated by the Court.  

Case Number: 23BBCV01900    Hearing Date: November 13, 2024    Dept: A

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT, DEPARTMENT A

NOTE:   This ruling is being published on the Court’s tentative ruling system to make it available to the parties forthwith.   That is for the convenience of the parties and is not intended to indicate that this ruling is a tentative ruling or soliciting further argument.

The Defendants filed an ex parte motion to have their Motion for Summary Judgment advanced and heard before trial.   The Court granted the request and set the matter for argument on November 12, 2024.   Plaintiff filed no opposition, but did file a declaration on November 12, 2024 supporting their oral opposition.  Plaintiff asserted that an opposition was filed on Saturday November 10, 2024, but this was not received by the Court.   The matter was argued on November 12, 2024 and taken under submission.   The Court now issues its ruling.

ALLEGATIONS:

Defendants brought this Motion for Summary Judgment asserting two reasons for granting the motion.   First that the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit was defective as it sought rent which was protected by the Los Angeles County COVID 19 Moratorium (“Moratorium”) and that pursuant to CCP §116.223 the jurisdiction for this matter lies with the Small Claims Court and not with an Independent Calendar Civil Court.

Plaintiff asserted that on Saturday November 10 they filed an opposition with supporting declarations; however, the Court has not received any such opposition.   Opposition was argued orally and a declaration opposing the motion was filed asserting that the Defendants did not provide declarations concerning their financial status under penalty of perjury or provide any supporting financial information in addition to their self-certification.  Plaintiff further argued that Defendants did not assert financial hardship within 7 days of each month the rent was due, and therefore any forbearance of prior rent that may have been delayed due to COVID 19 financial hardship was no longer excused.

ANALYSIS:  

I.                LEGAL STANDARD 

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.¿(2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) C.C.P.¿§ 437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment 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.)¿ “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.”¿ (Juge¿v. County of Sacramento¿(1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing¿FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima¿(1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.)¿ 

¿ 

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (C.C.P.¿§437c(p)(2);¿Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc.¿(2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.¿(2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)¿ 

¿ 

Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v.¿Paetkau¿(1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)¿ 

CCP §116.223(a)(4) discusses the need to provide the expedited ability for landlords to seek judicial redress for COVID 19 related rent, and as such permits the use of the Small Claims Court to seek redress.

II.              MERITS

Plaintiffs and Defendants entered a lease in March of 2016.   Defendants assert that due to COVID 19 financial hardship they were unable to pay rent and on August 2, 2023, Plaintiffs issued a Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit.  The Three-Day Notice demanded past rent which included both rent accrued during the moratorium period and post moratorium rent.

Under the Moratorium, the “Protections Period” was from March 4, 2020 through March 31, 2023. (Moratorium IV. L).  This includes both the initial Protected Time Period and the Extension Protections Period.  Under its own terms, the Moratorium expired on March 31, 2023. (Moratorium V.A.1).

To qualify, a tenant must self-certify their income level and financial hardship to pay rent within seven days of the rent becoming due.  Finally, a tenant whose household income is at 80% of the Area Median Income and was unable to pay rent incurred from July 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023 shall have 12 months thereafter to repay such rental debt.

Small Claims Court

Defendants argue that the Small Claim Court has jurisdiction over the COVID 19 related rental debt, and this Court does not have jurisdiction.   The Court disagrees.   Section 116.223 was designed to permit a landlord an option to use the Small Claims Court to seek an expedited remedy for unpaid rent during the applicable time period.   It did not rest sole jurisdiction in the Small Claims Court nor did it grant a Small Claims Court the ability to return possession to the owner under an unlawful detainer action.

Defective Three-Day Notice

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants were required under the Moratorium to provide the requisite financial hardship notice every month, and their failure to do so timely renders the Three-Day Notice valid.   The Court disagrees.  The Three-Day Notice to pay rent must accurately state the amount that is due.  CCP §11161(2).  A notice that overstates the amount of rent due is ineffective and will not support an unlawful detainer action.  Levitz Furniture Co. v. Wingtip Communications, Inc. (2001) 86 Cal App 4^th 1035, 1038.  Even a minor overstatement of the rent due may be sufficient to render the notice defective.  Nourafchan v. Miner (1985) 169 Cal. App 3d 746, 753 (an overstatement of $5.96 when more than $1,000 in rent was due rendered the three-day notice defective).

In this instance, a single notice that a hardship existed would have resulted in a defect to the Three-Day Notice which would overstated the rent due.  However, the Three-Day Notice is only deemed defective if the rent due during the COVID abatement period is deferred.  Pursuant to the Moratorium, section VI. C, the rent is only deferred for 12 months if the tenant had a household income of 80% Area Median Income as that term is defined by the ordinance.  In reviewing the declaration filed by Christopher Valentine, information concerning their income was noticeably absent.  He only avers that he and Mr. Von Lahr sent notices to the landlord that their income was below the threshold without more, such as stating their actual income for this period.  While this may have been sufficient to defer the rent during the moratorium period, once that ended, to benefit from the 12 month repayment option they must show in this Summary Judgment that they in fact fell into that category.  The ordinance does not state that a tenant who had rent deferred from self-certification can automatically defer repayment for 12 months, but rather a tenant who was unable to pay rent.  The Defendants were obligated to present evidence they were unable to pay rent.  They failed to do so.  The conclusory statements in Valentine’s declaration is insufficient for purposes of meeting the standard of a summary judgment.

Furthermore, no declaration was filed concerning Mr. Von Lahr.   Mr. Valentine’s conclusions as to Mr. Von Lahr are without foundation as set forth in the declaration.  Based on the evidence presented, the Court is unable to say there is no triable issue of material fact.

III.             CONCLUSION

The Defendants presented insufficient evidence to support their Motion for Summary Judgment.   The Summary Judgment is denied.

In it so ordered.

November 13, 2024                                        /s/ F.M. Tavelman_______

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                        Superior Court of California

                                                                        County of Los Angeles