Judge: George F. Bird, Jr., Case: 23CMCV00274, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CMCV00274    Hearing Date: April 13, 2023    Dept: B

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       BACKGROUND

            Stan Lucas (“Plaintiff”) alleges that L.A.B. Sports Facility LLC and Farhang Hodjat (collectively “Defendants”) are in possession of the commercial premises Plaintiff owns located at 1533 and 1539 E. Del Amo Blvd. Carson, CA 90746 (the “Property”). Plaintiff alleges that in April of 2020, Defendants entered a written Standard Industrial/Commercial Multi-Tenant Lease – Gross (“Written Lease”) for a fixed four-year term. (Complaint (“Compl.”)  ¶ 7.) Plaintiff alleges that as of February 1, 2023, Defendants owed and had failed to pay an estimated $129,978.46 in rent. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff served both a Notice to Quit and a subsequent Notice to Pay Rent or Quit which Defendants allegedly failed to comply with. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12.) Plaintiff now seeks possession of the Property, forfeiture of the lease, unpaid rent, holdover damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of the suit. (Compl. p. 5:1-9.)

II.       MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

            A. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on April 3, 2023.

            Because this is an unlawful detainer action, Plaintiff may file a summary judgment motion with only 5 days’ notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1170.7.) Plaintiff argues that there is no dispute of material fact here because Plaintiff provided Defendants with a Notice of Default and subsequently a three-day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that any of the affirmative defenses plead in Defendants’ Answer are inapplicable to a commercial property.

            B. Opposition.

            Because this is an unlawful detainer action, Defendants may file a written opposition “on or before the court day before the hearing,” or Defendants may present an oral opposition at the time of the hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court rule 3.1351, subds. (b) – (c).) As of April 11, 2023, Defendants have not filed a written opposition.

III.       LEGAL STANDARDS

            A summary judgment motion in an unlawful detainer case “shall be granted or denied on the same basis as a motion under Section 437c.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1170.7.) Code of Civil Procedure section 473c allows a party to file a summary judgment motion “if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding,” and the motion shall be granted “if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c.)

            Because Plaintiff is bringing this motion for summary judgment, they have the initial burden of proof to show “that there is no defense to a cause of action” by “prov[ing] each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff ... has met that burden, the burden shifts to the 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 ... 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)

IV.       DISCUSSION

A.    Elements.

            “The basic elements of unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (2), are (1) the tenant is in possession of the premises; (2) that possession is without permission; (3) the tenant is in default for nonpayment of rent; (4) the tenant has been properly served with a written three-day notice; and (5) the default continues after the three-day notice period has elapsed.” (Kruger v. Reyes (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 16 [181 Cal.Rptr.3d 521, 526].)

B.     Possession.

            In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants entered a Written Lease in April 2020 for a term of four years. (Compl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff provides a copy of the Written Lease which lists the term of the tenancy as four years expiring on March 31, 2024. (Decl. of Stan Lucas, Exhibit 1, Term 1.3.) The Written Lease is signed by both Plaintiff and Defendants. (Id. at Exhibit 1, p. 16.) Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants obtained possession of the Property and continue to occupy the Property pursuant to the Written Lease. (Compl. ¶ 8.) Defendants’ Answer admits all allegations not objected to, and Defendants do not object to the allegations regarding possession. (Answer, ¶ 2(b).) Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Defendants are in possession of the Property without permission. As Plaintiff has met their burden, the burden shifts to Defendants to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact.

C.     Default for nonpayment of rent.

            Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had defaulted for failing to pay rent in the amount of $144,994.56. (Compl. ¶ 11.) The Written Lease provides that base rent will be deferred for the months of April, May, June, July, and August of 2020 to be amortized over the remaining 43 months of the lease. (Id. at Exhibit 1, p. 19.) Defendants are responsible for the base rent September 2020 through March 2024, the amortized rent September 2020 through March 2024, and an $883.00 common area operating cost from April 2020 through March 2024. (Ibid.) The schedule of base rent and amortized rent is initialed by both parties. (Id. at Exhibit 1, p. 20.)

            Plaintiff also provides a record of the charges and payments accruing throughout the rental. (Id. at Exhibit 2, pp.2-7; Id. at Exhibit 3, pp. 2-7.) Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that Defendants were responsible for the rent and have defaulted on the required payments. The burden now shifts to Defendants to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact related to the default for nonpayment of rent.

D.    Notice.

Plaintiff alleges that they provided Defendants two separate notices. First, Plaintiff alleges they served a Notice of Default on February 8, 2023. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff provides the Notice of Default which informed Defendants they had failed to pay rent charges in an estimated amount of $129,978.46, Defendants had three days, excluding Saturday, Sunday, and judicial holidays to cure the defect, and provided the contact information for who to pay. (Decl. of Stan Lucas, Exhibit 2.) The Proof of Service attached to the Notice of Default demonstrates that the notice was served by posting a copy on the Property and mailing a copy. (Ibid.)

After not receiving a payment from Defendants, on February 14, 2023, Plaintiff alleges they served a Notice to Pay Rent or Quit. (Compl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff provides the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit which informed Defendants they had defaulted on their obligation to pay rent in the estimated amount of $144,994.56, Defendants had three days, excluding Saturday, Sunday, and judicial holidays to pay the estimated rent or deliver possession, and the contact information for who to pay. (Decl. of Stan Lucas, Exhibit 3.) The Proof of Service attached to the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit demonstrates that the notice was served by posting a copy on the Property and mailing a copy. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff has demonstrated that Defendants were served with a proper Notice of Default and Notice to Pay Rent or Quit by posting and mailing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1162.) The burden now shifts to Defendants to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact as to notice.

E.     Continuing default.

            Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not either pay rent or deliver possession of the Property in compliance with the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit. (Compl. ¶ 12.) The three-day notice period for the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit expired on Friday, February 17, 2023. Plaintiff declares on March 31, 2023, that Defendants have failed to pay or deliver possession. (Decl. Stan Lucas, ¶ 8.) Plaintiff has sufficiently met their burden by presenting evidence of the continuing default. The burden now shifts to Defendants to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact related to the continuing default.

F.      Defendants’ burden.

            Because Plaintiff has provided evidence to demonstrate each element of a cause of action for unlawful detainer, the burden shifts to Defendants to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact related to the cause of action or affirmative defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)

Defendants may not simply rely on the allegations or denials in their pleading but instead must set forth specific facts demonstrating a triable issue of material fact. (Ibid.)

            Because Defendants have failed to respond to this Motion for Summary Judgment, they have failed to meet their burden to set forth a triable issue of material fact. Based on the foregoing, this Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

V.       CONCLUSION

            The Court rules as follows:

            This Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Written Lease is deemed forfeited. Plaintiff is granted possession of the Property. Plaintiff is awarded $144,994.56 in outstanding rents, $24,040.87 in holdover damages calculated at a rate of $559.09 per day from March 1, 2023, to April 13, 2023, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs.

            Plaintiff to give notice.

Dated: April 14, 2023                                                 ___________________________________

Judge of the Superior Court