Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22STUD01209, Date: 2022-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STUD01209    Hearing Date: August 1, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.

            On 3/18/2022, Plaintiff DPP9 Owner LLC (Plaintiff) filed an unlawful detainer action against Nicholas Von Geijer (Defendant).

            Now, Plaintiff moves for a judgment on the pleadings.

Factual Background

On or about December 20, 2021, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a 12 month residential lease agreement for the premises located at 702 N. Doheny Drive, #TH15, West Hollywood, CA 90069. Said agreement called for rent in the amount of $22,000.00 to be paid on the first day of every month. Defendant failed to pay February 2022 rent in the amount of $22,000.00. Plaintiff served Defendant with a Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit for February 2022 rent on February 7, 2022. Said notice expired on February 10, 2022. Defendant failed to comply with the Three Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit by either tendering the amount demanded therein or by surrendering possession of the premises. Plaintiff therefore filed subject unlawful detainer on March 18, 2022. Defendant filed a general denial to the Complaint and did not assert any affirmative defenses in his Answer.

Discussion 

            Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to a judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the Answer fails to allege any affirmative defenses.

Every material allegation of the complaint not controverted by the answer, shall, for the purpose of the action, be taken as true. (See CCP §§ 430.80(a), 431.20(a), 438.) In addition to the denials, the answer should contain whatever affirmative defenses or objections to the complaint that the Defendant has, and that would otherwise not be at issue under a simple denial. All of Defendant’s defenses must be separately stated and a material allegation not denied is deemed true. (See CCP §§ 431.20 and 431.30.)

            Here, Defendant filed an answer in which no affirmative defenses were raised. Therefore, Plaintiff need only provide evidence that it complied with the CCP section 1161 et. seq. to prevail on the motion. Plaintiff has met that burden.

            Defendant’s failure to oppose this motion is treated as a concession to the merits of Plaintiff’s motion.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  August    , 2022

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.