Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 22SMCV00569, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22SMCV00569 Hearing Date: October 13, 2022 Dept: 207
Background
This is an unlawful detainer action brought by Plaintiff
Sunset Equity Partners, LLC (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant Filemon Garcia
(“Defendant”) concerning the commercial property located at 1323 Venice
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. When Defendant did not make an appearance
in this action, default was entered against him on May 10, 2022, followed by
the entry of a default judgment against him on May 19, 2022. On July 25, 2022,
the Court granted Defendant’s motion to set aside the entry of default and
default judgment.
Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment or, in the
alternative, summary adjudication. A party may oppose motion for summary
judgment filed in an unlawful detainer action orally at the hearing or with a
written opposition filed and served before or at the hearing. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 3.1351(b)-(c).) “If a party seeks to have a written opposition
considered in advance of the hearing, the written opposition must be filed and
served on or before the court day before the hearing.” (Id., rule
3.1351(c).) At the time this tentative ruling was prepared by the Court,
Defendant had not filed a written opposition to Plaintiff’s motion.
Summary Judgment Standard
Code Civ.
Proc. § 1170.7 provides “A motion for summary judgment may be made at any time after
the answer is filed upon giving five days’ notice. Summary judgment shall be granted
or denied on the same basis as a motion under Section 437c.” “Any opposition to
the motion and any reply to an opposition may be made orally at the time of hearing
or in writing as set forth in (c).”¿ (CRC 3.1351(b).)¿ “If a party seeks to have
a written opposition considered in advance of the hearing, the written opposition
must be filed and served on or before the court day before the hearing. Service
must be by personal delivery, facsimile transmission, express mail, or other means
consistent with Code of Civil Procedure sections 1010, 1011, 1012, and 1013, and
reasonably calculated to ensure delivery to the other party or parties no later
than the close of business on the court day before the hearing. The court, in its
discretion, may consider written opposition filed later.”¿ (CRC 3.1351(c).)
A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted
show there is no triable issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law. (C.C.P. § 437c(c).) 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.) Code
Civ. Proc. § 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.)
On a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment,
the plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion that each element of the cause of action
in question has been proved, and that there is no defense thereto. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 437c, subd. (o)(1); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield
Company, et al. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850.)
“A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or
more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one
or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if that party
contends that the cause of action has no merit or that there is no affirmative
defense thereto . . . . A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if
it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim
for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)
When moving for summary judgment or adjudication on a defendant’s
affirmative defenses, “A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of
showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each
element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action.
Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to
the defendant or cross-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 or cross-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).)
Analysis
Plaintiff brings this motion seeking summary judgment on its
Complaint against Defendant. Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts one cause of action
against Defendant for unlawful detainer. Plaintiff alternatively moves “for an
order granting adjudication in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant FILEMON
GARCIA, as to each and every cause of action and defenses for which Defendant
FILEMON GARCIA has failed to establish that there are any triable issues of
material fact.” (Motion at 2.) The Court notes Plaintiff’s alternative request
for summary adjudication does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule
3.1350. Under rule 3.1350(b), “the specific cause of action, affirmative
defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in
the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of
undisputed material facts.” Plaintiff here has not identified any specific
causes of action or affirmative defenses it is moving for summary adjudication
on beyond the one cause of action for unlawful detainer which is the subject of
the motion for summary judgment. The separate statement Plaintiff filed with
its motion similarly runs afoul of rule 3.1350(d), which requires Plaintiff to
specifically identify “Each cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty,
or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion” in the separate
statement itself. This is not merely a technical violation, as Plaintiff’s
motion offers no evidence or argument as to any affirmative defense raised in
Defendant’s answer and as a result the Court cannot determine which defenses
Plaintiff is seeking summary adjudication of. Accordingly, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s alternative request for summary adjudication and will turn to the
merits of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
The basic elements of unlawful detainer based upon expiration
of a fixed term tenancy are: (i) plaintiff owns the property; (ii) plaintiff
leased the property to defendant until the lease expiration date; (iii) plaintiff
did not give defendant permission to continue occupying the property after the
lease agreement ended; and (iv) defendant is still occupying the property. (Camp
v. Matich (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 660, 665-666; Ryland v.
Appelbaum (1924) 70
Cal.App. 268, 270; CACI 4301.) Where, as here, an action is brought under Code
Civ. Proc. § 1161(1), however, no written notice to quit or pay rent is
required to be served on the defendant as a prerequisite to initiating unlawful
detainer proceedings. (C.C.P. § 1161(1); Castle Park No. 5 v. Katherine (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d Supp. 6, 10, fn.4; Buck v. Morrossis
(1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 461, 466; Ware v. Stafford (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 840,
844; Moon v. Marker (1938) 26 Cal.App.2d 33, 37 Earl Orchard Co.
v. Fava (1902) 138 Cal. 76; Lee Chuck v. Quan Wo Chong & Co. (1891),
91 Cal. 593.)
The Court finds Plaintiff has
carried its initial burden as to each of these elements, as follows:
Plaintiff purchased the subject
property on or about April 13, 2021. (UMF No. 1.) At the time of the purchase,
Defendant was leasing the property from a prior owner. (UMF No. 4.) “After a property
is sold or transferred, the transferee takes subject to the existing lease; this
new owner steps into the landlord's shoes and becomes the successor landlord, assuming
the terms and conditions of the lease the tenant had with the prior owner… The same
is true when the property is sold through foreclosure….” (DLI Properties, LLC
v. Hill (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 8.) Thus, Plaintiff assumed the
terms and conditions of Defendant’s lease.
The lease in question was for a
fixed term, and by its own terms “commence[d] on January 1st 2017 and expire[d]
at Midnight on January 1st 2022.” (Ex. B to Donel Decl.) The lease contained a
renewal option which Defendant did not utilize, and thus the lease expired at
midnight on January 1, 2022. (Donel Decl. at ¶¶ 13-14.) Defendant remains in
possession of the property. (UMF Nos. 5, 9.)
Under the terms of the lease, rent
for the property was set at $6,800 per month. (Ex. B to Donel Decl.) Defendant
did not pay rent to Plaintiff after the expiration of the lease. (UMF Nos. 8,
10.) Plaintiff alleges it was damaged by Defendant’s continued possession of
the subject property in the amount of $57,346.58, calculated at $6,800 for the
months February 2022 through September 2022, plus $2,946.58 as the pro-rated
share of rent through the October 13 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion. (Motion at
6; UMF No. 12.) The Court finds Plaintiff has carried its initial burden in
establishing its damages, except that Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s
calculation of rent at $226.66 per day. The daily rent is properly calculated at
$223.56 ($6,800 x 12 months = $81,600; $81,600/365 days = $223.56 per day).
The Court thus finds Plaintiff has
carried its initial burden in showing it is entitled to summary judgment on its
cause of action for unlawful detainer. Absent a showing by Defendant that a
triable issue of material fact exists as to Plaintiff’s claim for unlawful
detainer, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion.
Conclusion
The Court finds Plaintiff has
carried its initial burden in showing it is entitled to summary judgment on its
cause of action for unlawful detainer. Absent a showing by Defendant that a
triable issue of material fact exists as to Plaintiff’s claim for unlawful
detainer, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion.