Judge Joel R Wohlfeil, Case 37-2022-00038519-CU-NP-CTL 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2022-00038519-CU-NP-CTL, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 15, 2023

11/17/2023 09:00:00 AM C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Non-PI/PD/WD tort - Other Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00038519-CU-NP-CTL NORMAN VS ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST INC [EFILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Amended Motion, 09/07/2023

The Motion (ROA # 91, 104) of Defendants ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC., et al. ('Defendants') for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication on all causes of action set forth in the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Alexis Norman and Nicolette Cochran ('Plaintiffs'), is DENIED.

The basis for this ruling is set forth below.

The Request (ROA # 115) for judicial notice is DENIED.

The evidentiary objections (ROA # 121) are OVERRULED.

1st COA: Violation of Civil Code 1950.5 Paragraph 281 within the Complaint alleges that 'Defendants charged unsubstantiated cleaning, repair, replacement, and / or painting fees to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class upon the termination of their leasehold and deducted these charges from their security deposits.' 'No later than 21 calendar days after the tenant has vacated the premises ... the landlord shall furnish the tenant ... a copy of an itemized statement indicating the basis for, and the amount of, any security received and the disposition of the security, and shall return any remaining portion of the security to the tenant.' Civ. Code 1950.5(g)(1).

'Along with the itemized statement, the landlord shall also include copies of documents showing charges incurred and deducted by the landlord to repair or clean the premises ....' Id. at (g)(2).

'If the landlord ... did not do the work, the landlord shall provide the tenant a copy of the bill, invoice, or receipt supplied by the person or entity performing the work. The itemized statement shall provide the tenant with the name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity, if the bill, invoice, or receipt does not include that information.' Id. at (g)(2)(B).

'If a repair to be done by the landlord or the landlord's employee cannot reasonably be completed within 21 calendar days after the tenant has vacated the premises, or if the documents from a person or entity providing services, materials, or supplies are not in the landlord's possession within 21 calendar days after the tenant has vacated the premises, the landlord may deduct the amount of a good faith estimate of the charges that will be incurred and provide that estimate with the itemized statement. If the reason for the estimate is because the documents from a person or entity providing services, materials, or Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3017244 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: NORMAN VS ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST INC [EFILE] 37-2022-00038519-CU-NP-CTL supplies are not in the landlord's possession, the itemized statement shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity. Within 14 calendar days of completing the repair or receiving the documentation, the landlord shall complete the requirements in paragraphs (1) and (2) in the manner specified.' Id. at (g)(3).

It is undisputed that Defendants provided a 'Move-Out Statement' that identified the following three repair and cleaning costs: (1) apartment painting ($385.75), (2) apartment cleaning ($280.00), and (3) blinds replacement ($312.93).

Defendants' Separate Statement number 6 provides: 'The Move-Out Statement sent to Plaintiffs also contained copies of: (i) a third-party invoice for the painting; (ii) a third-party invoice for the cleaning; and (iii) an estimate for the blind replacement charge.' However, the evidence submitted by Defendants in support of fact number 6 ('Exhibit D') demonstrates that the documents provided to Plaintiffs with the itemized statement were as follows: (1) an estimate from West Coast Blind Company; (2) a 'Purchase Order' created by Essex Property Trust for a 'Heavy unit cleaning' by 'Sandiego Bath & Kitchen Renovation'; and (3) ) a 'Purchase Order' created by Essex Property Trust for 'Full unit paint' by 'Sandiego Bath & Kitchen Renovation.' None of these documents qualify as a 'bill, invoice, or receipt supplied by the ... entity performing the work.' Defendants did not provide a follow-up bill, invoice or receipt for the blinds repair.

Defendants provide no argument or evidence for the contention that a bill, invoice or receipt for each category of work was not available or could not be obtained.

Defendants have not satisfied their initial burden of producing evidence supporting their motion. See Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850 ('... the party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.').

As a result, there is a disputed issue of material fact regarding whether Defendants violated section 1950.5, and the Motion is denied on this basis.

2nd COA: Unfair Competition (Bus. & Prof. Code 17200) This cause of action is predicated on the violation of section 1950.5 as the alleged 'illegal' conduct. As a result, this cause of action also survives.

In addition, Defendants argue: 'The UCL also requires an injury-in-fact, which Plaintiffs cannot establish.' Paragraph 284 within the first cause of action is also incorporated into the second cause of action. It alleges: 'Defendants, as a result of these charges, unlawfully retained some or all of Plaintiffs' and the Plaintiff Class's security deposits.' 'If, within the specified period, the landlord has not provided the tenant with a written accounting of the portion of the security deposit he plans to retain, the right to retain all or part of the security deposit under section 1950.5 has not been perfected, and he must return the entire deposit to the tenant.' Granberry v. Islay Investments (1995) 9 Cal. 4th 738, 745.

Although section 1950.5 has been amended since this opinion issued, it appears the same logic applies.

It is disputed whether Defendant failed to perfect their right to deduct amounts for cleaning, painting and Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3017244 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: NORMAN VS ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST INC [EFILE] 37-2022-00038519-CU-NP-CTL blinds repair from the security deposit, as discussed above. Also, the seven fact statements submitted by Defendants do not reflect whether the security deposit could, or was, used for past due rent amounts.

Therefore, it is disputed whether the security deposit should have been returned to Plaintiffs. The failure to return these funds to the rightful owners could constitute an 'injury in fact' giving Plaintiffs standing to assert this cause of action.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3017244