Judge: George F. Bird, Jr., Case: 22STUD01359, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

“INSTRUCTIONS:
If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court
appearance on the matter, the moving party must:

1. Contact the opposing party and all other
parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the
tentative ruling.

2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day
before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties
will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and

3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all
parties entitled to receive service.

If this procedure is followed, when the case is
called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its
tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then
no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.
If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may
either be taken off calendar or ruled on. 

Case Number: 22STUD01359    Hearing Date: October 21, 2022    Dept: B

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       BACKGROUND

            Power House LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Rachel Perez and Jesus Perez (sued as Joe Perez) (the “Defendants”) alleging the unlawful detainer of 1419 West 105^th Street, Los Angeles CA, 90047 (“The Property”) by Defendants. Plaintiff alleges they served a written notice on Defendants on February 2, 2022, demanding Defendants quit and deliver the property within five days of service of the notice. Defendants did not vacate so Plaintiff filed this action.

            Defendants first appearance was on April 14, 2022, when Defendants filed a demurrer alleging that Defendants were the rightful owners of The Property and Plaintiff lacked standing to sue. The Court overruled the demurrer and Defendants filed an answer on May 12, 2022.

            After a non-jury trial, the Court entered judgment for Plaintiff on August 11, 2022. Due to an allegation by Defendants that a stay may have been ordered in proceedings between the same parties (Case No. 21STCV264l), an order granting a stay on the execution of this judgment was granted until August 26, 2022. The stay was extended through October 7, 2022, for the parties to confer regarding the status of the other pending action. The stay on the execution was denied on October 7, 2022. Defendants had already filed a notice of intent to move for a new trial on October 6, 2022.

II.    MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

            As of October 18, 2022, Defendants have not filed a motion for new trial. In the Notice of Intent to Move for New Trial (the “Notice), Defendants stated that they would be moving for a new trial under Code Civ. Proc., § 657 which requires the motion be supported by affidavits or minutes of the court. Code Civ. Proc., § 658. Defendants state in the Notice they will be providing affidavits, but none have been filed. Code Civ. Proc., § 659, subd. (a) requires that the moving party must file any brief and accompanying documents, including affidavits, within 10 days of filing the notice of intent to move for a new trial. The Notice was filed on October 6, 2022, and the 10-day deadline for filing papers expired on October 16, 2022.

III. CONCLUSION

            Because a proper motion for new trial has not been filed and no evidentiary support for the motion has been presented, the Motion for New Trial is DENIED.

                                                                        Dated: October 21, 2022

                                                                        _________________________________

                                                                        Hon. George Bird

                                                                        Judge of the Superior Court