Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV01756, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01756    Hearing Date: October 13, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Millstone Point, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendants Stay LLC (“Stay”) and Empathy Labs LLC (“Empathy”).  The property at issue is located at 215 N. Hollywood Way in Burbank.  Plaintiff is alleged to be the owner of the property.

On February 24, 2023, Stay and Empathy entered into a written, 5-year tenancy agreement with Plaintiff for the property.  Plaintiff alleges that on July 21, 2023, Defendants were served with a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit.  Plaintiff seeks possession of the premises, costs incurred in the proceeding, past due rent of $36,000, reasonable attorney’s fees, forfeiture of the agreement, and damages at the rate of $400 per day from August 1, 2023. 

B.     Relevant Background

On August 23, 2023, “Matthieu Waulters – Empathy Labs LLC” filed an answer to the complaint.  (It does not appear that Matthieu Waulters is an attorney.  Thus, Empathy is not represented by counsel.)  On October 3, 2023, the Court voided the answer filed by Empathy. 

On September 19, 2023, the default of Stay LLC was entered. 

C.     Motion on Calendar

On September 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment in its favor against Defendants Empathy and Stay.    

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

CCP § 1161 defines “unlawful detainer” in relevant part as follows:

2. When the tenant continues in possession, in person or by subtenant, without the permission of the landlord, or the successor in estate of the landlord, if applicable, after default in the payment of rent, pursuant to the lease or agreement under which the property is held, and three days' notice, excluding Saturdays and Sundays and other judicial holidays, in writing, requiring its payment, stating the amount that is due, the name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent payment shall be made, and, if payment may be made personally, the usual days and hours that person will be available to receive the payment (provided that, if the address does not allow for personal delivery, then it shall be conclusively presumed that upon the mailing of any rent or notice to the owner by the tenant to the name and address provided, the notice or rent is deemed received by the owner on the date posted, if the tenant can show proof of mailing to the name and address provided by the owner), or the number of an account in a financial institution into which the rental payment may be made, and the name and street address of the institution (provided that the institution is located within five miles of the rental property), or if an electronic funds transfer procedure has been previously established, that payment may be made pursuant to that procedure, or possession of the property, shall have been served upon the tenant and if there is a subtenant in actual occupation of the premises, also upon the subtenant.

(CCP § 1161(2).) 

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment in its favor against Defendants.  Plaintiff provides the following undisputed facts:

Plaintiff is the owner of the residential property located at 215 N. Hollywood Way in Burbank.  (Pl.’s Fact 1.)  Defendants occupy the premises pursuant to a written rental agreement (“Lease”).  (Id. at 2.)  The current monthly rent for the premises is $12,000 due on the 1^st of the month.  (Id. at 3.)  Defendants failed to pay the monthly rate that came due for May 1, 2023 to July 31, 2023.  (Id. at 4.)  On July 18, 2023, Plaintiff served on Defendants a Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit (“Notice”) at the premises (after no person of suitable age or discretion could be found) by causing the Notice to be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises and mailing a copy of the Notice in U.S. Mail in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepared, addressed to Defendants at the premises.  (Id. at 5.)  Plaintiff does not know of Defendants’ current place of employment if different from the premises.  (Id.)  The Notice demanded past due rent for May 1, 2023 to July 31, 2023 only.  (Id. at 6.)  Defendants did not pay the amount demanded in the Notice or vacate the premises within the notice period or any time thereafter.  (Id. at 7.)  Thus, Plaintiff filed this unlawful detainer on August 1, 2023 due to nonpayment of rent.  (Id.)  Plaintiff has not received rental assistance or other financial compensation from any source corresponding to the amount demanded in the Notice or for rent accruing after the date of the Notice.  (Id. at 8-9.)  Plaintiff does not have any pending application for rental assistance or other financial compensation from any other source corresponding to the amount demanded in the Notice or for rent accruing after the date of the Notice.  (Id. at 10-11.)  To date, Defendants remain in possession of the premises.  (Id. at 12.)  The reasonable rental value of the rent for the premises is $400/day, which is based on the monthly rental value of $12,000 divided by 30 days.  (Id. at 13.) 

Here, Plaintiff has established its burden establishing that Defendants failed to make rental payments as agreed in the Lease and failed to cure the default after receipt of the Notice.  Plaintiff has established the elements of an unlawful detainer claim for the real property at issue. 

As a separate issue, Plaintiff argues that Empathy’s self-representation is improper.  Empathy’s answer was filed by Matthieu Waulters, who does not appear to be an attorney.  However, as noted above, Empathy’s answer has already been stricken.  The default of Empathy has not yet been requested or entered. 

As such, the burden shifts to Defendants to raise a triable issue of material fact.  The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.  Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1351, Defendants may present an oral opposition at the time of the hearing or file a written opposition one day before the hearing.  However, as noted above, Empathy’s answer has been stricken and Stay LLC is in default.  At this time, the Court is not in receipt of a written opposition brief, such that Defendants have not raised triable issues of material fact.  Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is granted.  

CONCLUSION AND ORDER  

            Plaintiff Millstone Point, LLC’s motion for summary judgment is granted.  Plaintiff is ordered to lodge with the Court and serve on Defendants a proposed judgment within ten (10) days and to provide notice of this order.

            Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.