Judge Gary I. Micon, Case Number: 22CHCV00005, Date: 2024-09-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 22CHCV00005, Date: 2024-09-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00005 Hearing Date: September 10, 2024 Dept: F43

Macaria Beltran, Trustee of the MCB Trust vs. Patrick Graham

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION FOR ORDER TO TERMINATE THE STAY

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Macaria Beltran, Trustee of the MCB Trust

RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiff has moved for an order to terminate the stay upon conclusion of the appeal and allow Plaintiff to enforce the Court’s judgment after bench trial entered on September 12, 2022.

RULING: Motion is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Macaria Beltran, Trustee of the MCB Trust, (Plaintiff) filed this motion on the grounds that on July 12, 2024, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District issued a Remittitur, following its April 30, 2024, opinion, affirming the judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Patrick Graham (Defendant) for lockout and possession of Plaintiff’s rental property. Plaintiff has not received a rental payment from Defendant since December 2023 and possession of the property remains at issue, which was an express condition of the stay pending appeal. Now that the appeal has been decided, Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to enforce the Court’s judgment because there remains no legal basis for any further stays on the execution of the lockout and judgment.

No opposition has been filed by Defendant.

ANALYSIS

In this case, the Court, Judge Pfahler presiding, granted Defendant’s request for stay under the applicable standard: “An appeal taken by the defendant shall not automatically stay proceedings upon the judgment. Petition for stay of the judgment pending appeal shall first be directed to the judge before whom it was rendered. Stay of judgment shall be granted when the court finds that the moving party will suffer extreme hardship in the absence of a stay and that the nonmoving party will not be irreparably injured by its issuance. If the stay is denied by the trial court, the defendant may forthwith file a petition for an extraordinary writ with the appropriate appeals court. If the trial or appellate court stays enforcement of the judgment, the court may condition the stay on whatever conditions the court deems just, but in any case it shall order the payment of the reasonable monthly rental value to the court monthly in advance as rent would otherwise become due as a condition of issuing the stay of enforcement. ...” (CCP § 1176(a).)

The Court kept the stay in place prior to the appeal because the degree of harm to the parties was unknown. Now, Plaintiff argues that she is being irreparably harmed by the stay on the lockout. Plaintiff argues that the balance of equities contemplated by CCP § 1176(a) falls in favor of Plaintiff because Plaintiff has suffered significant financial consequences due to Defendant’s failure to pay the water bill on the property. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant’s continued presence at the property during the stay has exacerbated Plaintiff’s financial hardships and has exposed her to potential legal repercussions.

Now that the appeal has been decided in Plaintiff’s favor, there does not appear to be any reason to keep the stay in place, nor has Defendant submitted any opposition arguing that it should be kept in place.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to terminate the stay is granted. Plaintiff may enforce her judgment against Defendant.

Moving party to give notice to all parties.