Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV04386, Date: 2024-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04386    Hearing Date: March 27, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Jamshid Barmaan (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

This action was initiated on February 4, 2022, and arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship.  The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”); (2) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”); and (3) conversion.

In relevant part, the FAC alleges: Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (the “Lease Agreement”) with Moving Defendant to rent property (the “Property”) in around 2015.  (FAC ¶ 14.)  Pursuant to the Lease Agreement, Plaintiff agreed to make monthly rent payments.  (Id.)  Moving Defendant represented himself as a licensed realtor and told Plaintiff that he owned and managed the Property.  (FAC ¶ 15.)

 At around the end of 2017, Plaintiff was badly injured in a car accident.  (FAC ¶ 16.)  Plaintiff thereafter went to Iran to obtain medical treatment and heal from the injuries he sustained in the car accident.  (FAC ¶ 17.)  Moving Defendant informed Plaintiff that he would not need to pay rent while he was in Iran rehabilitating and until he fully recovered or reached a legal settlement relating to the accident.  (See FAC ¶ 18.) 

When Plaintiff returned to the Property in around April 2018, he learned that Moving Defendant had entered the Property and removed Plaintiff’s personal property, including cash in the amount of at least $10,000 and furniture.  (FAC ¶ 19.)  Also in around April 2018, Moving Defendant entered the Property, threatened Plaintiff with a knife, and forced Plaintiff to sign a document relinquishing his rights to the Property.  (FAC ¶ 21.) 

Moving Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (the “MSJ”) to the FAC on the grounds that there are no triable issues of material fact as to the remaining cause of action for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED with respect to Exhibits 1-9 as to the existence of the documents but not to the truth of the matters stated therein.  (See Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 389, 400; Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. Superior Court (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1191-92.) 

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

            The Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections in full.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

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.)  CCP section 437c, subdivision (c) requires the 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.) 

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication meets the burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if the plaintiff has proved each element of the cause of action entitling them to judgment on that cause of action.  (CCP § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)  Courts liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of the opposing party.  (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party 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.)  The opposition papers must include a separate statement that responds to each of the material facts that the moving party claims to be undisputed.  (CCP § 437c, subd. (b)(3).)  If the opposing party disputes a fact, then the opposing party must reference supporting evidence.  (Id.) 

Unfair Competition Law

The UCL prohibits unfair competition, including unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts.  (Feitelberg v. Credit Suisse First Boston, LLC (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 997, 1008-09.)  To show a violation of the UCL, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury; and (2) show that that economic injury was the result of, i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice or false advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.  (Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 322.)  A business act or practice only needs to meet one of the requirements to be considered unfair competition under the UCL.  (Daro v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1093.)  Whether a particular act is business-related is a question of fact dependent on the circumstances of each case.  (People ex rel. City of Santa Monica v. Gabriel (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 882, 888.)  The renting of residential housing may be a business act.  (Id.; see also Daro v. Superior Court, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at 1101, n. 11.)

            Defendant argues for summary judgment on the UCL claim on the grounds that there are no triable issues of fact as to conversion.  Specifically, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff cannot prove that Defendant took $44,000 in cash and $6,000 in coins from Plaintiff’s apartment or that such taking was a substantial factor in causing harm.  Defendant asserts the evidence fails to show that Defendant stole personal property from Plaintiff’s apartment.  Defendant argues as follows: Plaintiff asserts that before leaving for Iran in January 2018, he changed the lock on his apartment door and did not provide a key to Defendant, suggesting that the apartment remained secured during his absence.  (Defendant’s Undisputed Material Facts “UMF” nos. 11-14.)  Plaintiff alleges having stored $44,000 in cash and $6,000 in coins in a rice bag hidden within the box spring of his mattress, a location purportedly known only to him.  (UMF nos. 16, 17, 19.)  However, Plaintiff later indicated uncertainty about the exact location of the cash.  (UMF 18.)  Thus, according to these assertions, Defendant points out that he had neither a key to the apartment nor knowledge of the hiding place.  (UMF nos. 12, 19.)  Plaintiff conceded in his deposition that Defendant never entered the apartment to steal his belongings, including the cash and coins in question.  (UMF 21.)  This admission was supported by his acknowledgment of the absence of witnesses to corroborate his theft claim.  (UMF 22.) In  Plaintiff’s deposition, he explicitly denies any direct theft by Defendant.  (UMF 21.) 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff provided no concrete facts in response to special interrogatories about the theft, but rather reiterated the broad allegations from his First Amended Complaint about Defendant’s supposed agreement regarding rent and the vague claim of theft upon his return from Iran, without specifying the alleged $44,000 and $6,000 amounts.  (UMF 25.)  When asked to identify potential witnesses, Plaintiff mentioned neighbors but admitted to not knowing their identities or contact information.  (UMF 26.)  Defendant asserts that this narrative raises significant questions about the substantiation of Plaintiff’s claims regarding the theft. 

            Additionally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot establish that Defendant directed others to steal personal property from his apartment.  Defendant provides as follows:  Plaintiff recounted an agreement with Defendant that exempted him from paying rent while he sought medical treatment in Iran due to injuries from a car accident.  Upon his return, he discovered the alleged theft of his property, including cash and other items, but did not specifically allege that the defendant directed others to commit this theft.  (UMF 25.)  During his deposition, Plaintiff admitted lacking evidence to support his claim that the defendant had orchestrated the entry into his apartment to steal cash and coins.  (UMF 24.)  Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s testimony reveals a belief in Dfendant’s guilt but acknowledges an absence of evidence to substantiate this belief.  (UMF 24.)  Given this admission, Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to establish the necessary elements for a claim of conversion—specifically, that Defendant substantially interfered with Plaintiff’s property in a manner that was knowing or intentional.

            The Court finds that Defendant has satisfied his prima facie burden in showing that there are no triable issues of fact to support Plaintiff’s UCL claim.  The burden shifts to Plaintiff.

            In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant has failed to shift the burden by making an affirmative showing that negates any element of Plaintiff’s claim.  Plaintiff contends that simply demonstrating an absence of evidence on his part is not sufficient for summary judgment.  He states that if any of the 26 material facts identified by Defendant in his motion are disputed, it should be sufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiff further argues that Defendant has not successfully negated any cause of action under the UCL.   He asserts violations of several laws, including trespass, which he claims Defendant has not refuted.  Moreover, Plaintiff asserts that his UCL claim is not limited to a theory of conversion, but that there are other unlawful acts, such as trespass to chattels and burglary, that also support his claim under the UCL. 

            In reply, Defendant argues that the facts presented in his moving papers are sufficient to shift the burden of proof to Plaintiff.  (See Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 851 [moving party must make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact].)  Defendant criticizes Plaintiff’s opposition for failing to produce competent material evidence to support a claim of conversion, pointing out that Plaintiff’s “disputed facts” are speculative and unsupported by evidence.  These disputed facts include assertions that someone must have known about the hidden cash and coins, that Defendant ordered the theft, and that there are witnesses to support Plaintiff’s allegations, all of which Defendant contests as baseless.

Additionally, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims of trespass and burglary, were never previously pled and are unsupported by evidence.  Defendant further points out Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(b)3, which requires a separate statement responding to the moving party’s material facts and sets forth any disputed facts with references to supporting evidence.  Defendant emphasizes the absence of any admissible evidence from Plaintiff to support his claims and highlights Plaintiff's lack of diligence in pursuing discovery to substantiate his allegations.  Given these deficiencies, Defendant concludes that the Court should grant summary judgment in his favor.

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, the Court finds that Defendant has provided sufficient arguments and evidence to show that there are no triable issues of fact.  Plaintiff, on the other hand, fails to rebut that showing by failing to provide any admissible evidence to show that there are sufficient facts to establish the elements of conversion, the underlying unlawful act for his UCL claim.  Further, as Defendant points out, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he may rely on trespass and burglary to support his UCL claim.  Finally, Plaintiff fails to raise any admissible evidence to support his claims.

Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

       Dated this 27th day of January 2023