Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

330 north brand, inc.,

Plaintiff,

johnhart corp.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 24NNCV01081

Hearing Date: July 5, 2024

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of issues

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations

Plaintiff 330 North Brand, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendant Johnhart Corp. (“Defendant”). The property at issue is located at 330 North Brand Blvd., Suite 130, Glendale, CA 91203. Plaintiff is the owner of the premises.

On December 19, 2011, Plaintiff as landlord and Defendant as tenant entered into a written Office Lease (as amended by a First Amendment to Office Lease dated January 3, 2017, a Second Amendment to Office Lease dated May 31, 2017, a Third Amendment to Office Lease dated February 15, 2018, and a Fourth Amendment to Office Lease dated August 18, 2020; hereinafter, “Lease”) whereby Defendant leased the premises. Plaintiff alleges that additional space within the building containing the premises was also leased by Defendant under the Lease, but possession of such space has been resolved and is not at issue in this matter. Plaintiff alleges that the Lease expired on December 31, 2020 and that all times thereafter, Defendant remained in possession pursuant to Article 15 of the Lease (the holdover provision), except that the parties agreed that Defendant would not pay 200% of the rent as (a) the time period was in the midst of Covid and (b) the parties were attempting to negotiate an extension of the Lease.

Plaintiff alleges that the Lease expired on December 31, 2020 and the Lease became a month-to-month holdover tenancy. Plaintiff alleges that on October 8, 2023, Plaintiff served a 30-Day Notice To Terminate Tenancy (the “Notice”) on Defendant in accordance with the provisions of the Lease by forwarding same according to the notice provisions of the Lease to Defendant at the Premises via FedEx. FedEx confirmed delivery as of October 11, 2023. Plaintiff alleges that the Notice required Defendant to quit the premises within 30 days after service of the Notice and also set forth Plaintiff's election to declare a forfeiture of the Lease. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is still in possession of the premises despite more than 30 days passing since service of the Notice (the expiration of the 30-day period was November 10, 2023).

On May 23, 2024, the default of all unnamed occupants in possession was entered.

B. Motion on Calendar

On May 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment in its favor against Defendant in this case for possession of the premises and for damages in the amount of $61,090.70 (190 days at $321.53 per day for each day that Defendant remains at the premises from January 12, 2024 until judgment). Alternatively, Plaintiff seeks summary adjudication on the following issue:

· Issue 1: The undisputed facts demonstrate that Plaintiff is entitled to an order summarily adjudicating the cause of action for unlawful detainer and granting possession of the premises because Defendant’s occupancy of the premises has been month-to-month for years. Plaintiff has served a 30-day notice to terminate the lease and Defendant failed to vacate the property.

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

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

1. When the tenant continues in possession, in person or by subtenant, of the property, or any part thereof, after the expiration of the term for which it is let to the tenant; provided the expiration is of a nondefault nature however brought about without the permission of the landlord, or the successor in estate of the landlord, if applicable; including the case where the person to be removed became the occupant of the premises as a servant, employee, agent, or licensee and the relation of master and servant, or employer and employee, or principal and agent, or licensor and licensee, has been lawfully terminated or the time fixed for occupancy by the agreement between the parties has expired; but nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as preventing the removal of the occupant in any other lawful manner; but in case of a tenancy at will, it shall first be terminated by notice, as prescribed in the Civil Code.

(CCP § 1161(1).)

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment in its favor against Defendant.

In support of its motion, Plaintiff provides the declaration of Spencer Wilson, the Vice President of Transwestern, the agent and property manager for Plaintiff. (Wilson Decl., ¶1.) Mr. Wilson states that on December 19, 2011, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a written Office Lease for the premises, which was subsequently amended 4 times (“Lease”). (Id., ¶3, Ex. A [Lease].) He states that all relevant times, Plaintiff has owned the premises. (Id., ¶4.) He states that Defendant has been month-to-month since the Lease term expired on December 31, 2020 as shown in paragraph 4 of the last amendment to the Lease. (Id., ¶5.) He states that because the parties were unable to agree upon the terms of a new lease or for an extension of the Lease, Plaintiff sought to take back the space after entering into a new lease for the premises with a new tenant and that new lease provides for a rental amount of $9,796.00 per month. (Id., ¶6.) Mr. Wilson states that after letters were sent back and forth with Defendant concerning the need for the return of the premises, it became clear that Defendant was not going to vacate as requested. (Id., ¶7.) He states that on December 8, 2023, he served a 30-Day Notice to Terminate Tenancy (“Notice”) on Defendant in accordance with the provisions of the Lease by forwarding the same according to the notice provision of the Lease to Defendant at the premises via FedEx (delivery confirmed as of December 11, 2023). (Id.) He states that the Notice required Defendant to quit the premises within 30 days after service of the Notice. (Id., Ex. B [Notice with FedEx confirmation].) Mr. Wilson states that the action was not filed sooner than April 2024 was because Plaintiff was trying to find a different space for the new tenant so that Defendant could possibly remain in the premises if the parties could reach an agreement on the terms; however, that did not happen. (Id., ¶8.) He states that while the parties have been negotiating an extension, they never reached an agreement on terms, there is no writing signed by the parties extending the Lease and no new lease between the parties for the premises. (Id., ¶10.) He states that “Defendant has simply claimed to have some sort of agreement without any approval from Plaintiff.” (Id.)

Mr. Wilson states that Defendant is still in possession of the premises despite more than 30 days passing since service of the Notice and Plaintiff has not accepted any rent for the premises since the Notice was served. (Id., ¶9.) Mr. Wilson states that the rent called for in the new lease ($9,796.00 per month) is the reasonable rental value of the premises, as that is the most recent arms-length transaction for this exact space and based upon that monthly rent, the daily value of the premises is $322.06 (calculated by taking the monthly rent of $9,796.00 and multiplying it by 12 months and then dividing that by 365 days). (Id.) Mr. Wilson states, however, because Plaintiff asked for $321.53 in the complaint, Plaintiff will use that lower amount. (Id.)

Here, Plaintiff has established its burden establishing that Defendant has continued in possession of the premises after the Lease expired. Paragraph 4 of the Fourth Amendment of the Lease states that the term respecting Suite 130 shall expire on December 31, 2020. After the tenancy became a holdover month-to-month tenancy, Plaintiff served the Notice on December 8, 2023 (confirmed delivery by FedEx on December 11, 2023), such that Defendant’s tenancy expired on November 10, 2023. However, as stated by Mr. Wilson in his declaration, Defendant did not vacate the premises by that date and the parties were unable to agree upon a Lease extension or a new lease. Thus, Plaintiff has established the elements of an unlawful detainer claim for the real property at issue.

As such, the burden shifts to Defendant to raise a triable issue of material fact. Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1351, Defendant may present an oral opposition at the time of the hearing or file a written opposition one day before the hearing. At this time, the Court is not in receipt of a written opposition brief, such that Defendant has not raised triable issues of material fact. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is granted. If a written opposition is filed the day before the hearing or oral opposition arguments are made at the time the hearing, the Court will consider Defendant’s arguments at that time.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff 330 North Brand, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to lodge with the Court and serve on Defendant a proposed judgment within ten (10) days and to provide notice of this order. Based upon this ruling, the Final Status Conference and Trial are advanced to this date and vacated.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: July 5, 2024 ___________________________

John Kralik

Judge of the Superior Court