Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV08082, Date: 2024-08-07 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs OMNINET MV MANSFIELD, LLC; and OMNINET CV MANSFIELD, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

The Court has considered the moving papers. The motion is unopposed. Any opposition was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

This action arises from the alleged breach of a lease agreement concerning a residential real property located at 1318 North Mansfield Avenue, #307, Los Angeles, California 90028 (the “Premises”). On April 12, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for Damages for Breach of Written Lease (the “Complaint”) against Defendant Diana Pal (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, alleging a sole cause of action for Breach of Lease.

The Complaint alleges the following: on or about February 22, 2021, Plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-interest, as landlord, entered into a written rental agreement (the “Lease”) with Defendant, as tenant, concerning the Premises. (Complaint, ¶ 7.) Pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Lease, Defendant is obligated to pay a monthly base rent of $1,750.00, plus additional charges due under the Lease. (Complaint, ¶ 9.) Plaintiff alleges that in or about October 2021 and continuing thereafter, Defendant breached the Lease, by, among other things, failing to pay rent and other charges due under the Lease. (Complaint, ¶ 11.)

On May 10, 2023, Defendant filed an Answer—Unlawful Detainer to the Complaint.

On March 7, 2024, Plaintiffs filed and served the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). No opposition to the Motion has been filed.

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.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) “A plaintiff . . . has met his or her burden of showing 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 that cause of action.” (Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1320.) A plaintiff is not required “to disprove any defense asserted by the defendant as well as prove each element of his own cause of action.” (WRI Opportunity Loans II, LLC v. Cooper (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 525, 531-32.) “Once the plaintiff makes an adequate initial showing, the burden shifts to the defendant to show a triable issue of fact as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Id. at p. 532; CCP § 437c(p)(1).)

“There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Aguilar, 25 Cal.4th at 850.) 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.” (CCP § 437c(p)(1).)

“The standard elements of a claim for breach of contract are: ‘(1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) damage to plaintiff therefrom.’” (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178; San Mateo Union High School Dist. v. County of San Mateo (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 418, 439.)

Plaintiffs present the following undisputed material facts: on or about February 22, 2021, Plaintiffs’ predecessor-in-interest, as landlord, and Defendant, as Tenant, entered into the Lease for the Premises. Plaintiffs are the current owner of the Premises and the lessor under the Lease. (UMF No. 1.) Pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Lease, Defendant was and is currently obligated to pay a monthly base rent of $1,750.00 and Defendant is also responsible for paying all utilities except electricity pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the Lease. (UMF No. 2.) Plaintiffs have performed all conditions of the Lease required of it except those conditions in which Plaintiffs’ nonperformance thereof was excused or justified. (UMF No. 3.) Defendant’s failure to pay, among other things, the rent due under the Lease has excused Plaintiffs from any other obligations under the Lease. (Id.) In or about September 2021 and continuing thereafter, Defendant breached the Lease by, among other things, failing to pay rent and other charges due under the Lease. (UMF No. 4.) The total billed unpaid rental damages—base rent and utilities—through May 31, 2023 is $29,982.03. (UMF No. 5.)

The Court finds that there are no factual issues regarding Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs have established the existence of a lease agreement between the parties. (Declaration of Violeta Vitkova in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, ¶ 3; Exh. A.) Plaintiffs have also submitted sufficient evidence to establish Defendant’s breach of the agreement with respect to the failure to pay rent. (Id.; Exh. B.)

Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing the existence of each element for the cause of action for breach of lease. The burden now shifts to Defendant to show a triable issue of material fact. Defendant, on the other hand, has presented no evidence to controvert the facts as presented by Plaintiffs. The Court notes that while Defendant, in her answer, raised defenses applicable to unlawful detainer actions, this is not an action for unlawful detainer/eviction but for breach of lease due to nonpayment of rent.

Given that the Motion is unopposed, Defendant has not met her burden of showing a triable issue of material fact. Moreover, because Defendant has failed to oppose the Motion, Defendant has conceded to the arguments raised therein, as “[c]ontentions are waived when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority.” (Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215.)

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court