Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV11373, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

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 4077 W. 3^rd Street, #628, Los Angeles, California 90020 (the “Premises”). On May 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Damages for Breach of Written Lease (the “Complaint”) against Defendant Deangelo Greene (“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 March 24, 2020, Plaintiff, as landlord, and Defendant, as tenant, entered into a written lease agreement (the “Lease”) concerning the Premises. (Complaint, ¶ 5.) Pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Lease, Defendant is obligated to pay a monthly base rent of $965.00, plus additional charges due under the Lease. (Complaint, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff alleges that in or about October 2020 and continuing thereafter, Defendant breached the Lease, by, among other things, failing to pay rent and other charges due under the Lease. (Complaint, ¶ 9.)

On May 26, 2023, Defendant filed an Answer—Unlawful Detainer to the Complaint.

On June 18, 2024, Plaintiff 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.)

Plaintiff presents the following undisputed material facts: On or about August 24, 2020, Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest, as landlord, and Defendant, as tenant, entered into the Lease for the Premises. Plaintiff is the current owner of the Premises and lessor. (UMF No. 1.) Pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Lease, Defendant was and is currently obligated to pay a monthly base rent of $965.00 and Defendant is also responsible for paying all utilities except electricity pursuant to Paragraph 9 of the Lease. (UMF No. 2.) Plaintiff has performed all conditions of the Lease required of it except those conditions in which Plaintiff’s 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 October 2020 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 March 21, 2024 (the date Defendant vacated the Premises) is $30,192.11. (UMF No. 5.)

Initially, the Court notes that the term of the Lease as set forth therein was one year, from August 25, 2020 to August 24, 2021. (Declaration of Violeta Vitkova (“Vitkova Decl.”), Exhibit “A”, para. 5.) Under paragraph 5 of the Lease: “A ‘month-to-month tenancy subject to the terms and conditions of this Lease shall be created only if Owner [Plaintiff] accepts rent from Resident [Defendant] thereafter.” According to Exhibit B to the Vitkova Decl., Plaintiff or its predecessor accepted a payment from Defendant on November 30, 2021 – after the end of the Lease term. (See, Vitaly Decl., Exh. B, p. 3.) Therefore, Defendant had a month-to-month tenancy under the terms of the Lease until he vacated the premises. Based upon this circumstance, which appears on the face of the evidence presented, the calculation of rent due is correct.

The Court therefore finds that there are no factual issues regarding Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff has established the existence of a lease agreement between the parties. Plaintiff has also submitted sufficient evidence to establish Defendant’s breach of the agreement with respect to the failure to pay rent, as well as the amount of damages proximately caused by said breach..

Plaintiff has thus met its 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 has presented no evidence to controvert the facts as presented by Plaintiff. 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.) Defendant, therefore, has not met his burden in showing the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to a cause of action or defense thereto.

Accordingly, the Court finds there are no triable issues of material fact and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling and to prepare a proposed form of Judgment which shall be lodged with the Court and served on Defendant within twenty (20) days of the date of this order.

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