Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV32402, Date: 2024-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV32402    Hearing Date: May 9, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Adaptive Realty Inc. (“Adaptive Realty”) and Avenue 55 Ventures, LLC (“Avenue 55”) (collectively, “Defendants”) move for summary judgment against Plaintiffs Danielle Diab, Harley Lally, and Devin Davis (collectively, “Responding Plaintiffs”). In the alternative, Defendants request summary adjudication.

The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication.

Background

This is a landlord-tenant case. Danielle Diab, Harley Lally, Devin Davis, Karin Neuman, Laura Ramanei, and Claire Johnson (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are tenants at real property located at 201 N. Avenue 55, (the “Property”) Units 201 and 202 (the “Premises”). Defendant Avenue 55 is the owner of the premises. Defendant Adaptive Realty is the property manager of the Premises.

Plaintiffs allege a number of defects in the Premises. Plaintiffs allege that there were leaks at multiple times in 2021 and 2022. Plaintiffs allege that the gates to the Property stopped functioning in January 2022, locking Plaintiff’s in. Plaintiffs allege that the defective conditions at the Premises are ongoing. (Complaint ¶¶ 51-52.)

In January 2022, Defendants began construction of the outside areas of the Property. (Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) 5.) Plaintiffs allege that this construction was unpermitted. Plaintiffs allege that this prevented their access to amenities and that Defendants elected illegal scaffolding and consistently created noise. Construction occurred from January 31, 2022 to May 9, 2022.

            On March 28, 2022, Plaintiffs Diab and Lally informed Defendants of two window leaks and agreed to vacate the premises to allow for repairs. (UMF 10.) On April 28, Adaptive Realty sent a proposed settlement and release agreement to Diab and Lally. (UMF 11.) On May 2, 2022, Diab sent Adaptive Reality a redline of the agreement with the general release provisions crossed out. (UMF 12; Ex. A.) Defendants stated that they would not agree to the settlement without the general release provisions. (UMF 13.) On May 4, 2022, Diab and Lally executed a settlement agreement with Adaptive Realty (the “May 4 Agreement”). (UMF 14, Ex. B.)

Davis informed Defendants of a similar window leak on March 28, 2022 as well, and also agreed to vacate the premises. (UMF 16.)  On May 5, 2022, Davis executed a similar agreement with Adaptive Realty (the “May 5 Agreement”) (collectively with the May 4 Agreement, “the Agreements”). (UMF 17; Ex. C.)

            Each of the Agreements contained substantially similar general release clauses, which release Adaptive Realty and all of its business partners from any known or unknown claims that Diab, Lally, and Davis had against them at the time of execution. (Ex. B at p. 2; Ex. C at p. 2.) Both of the Agreements expressly disclaim any release of future claims unrelated to the window leaks. (Ex. B at p. 1; Ex. C at p. 1.)

Plaintiffs allege that in May, June, and July of an unspecified year, presumably 2021 or 2022, Defendants have harassed Plaintiffs and threatened Plaintiffs with harm if Plaintiffs do not voluntarily vacate the Premises. (Complaint ¶ 86.) Plaintiffs allege that this ‘campaign’ against them has continued at least through the time at which the Complaint was filed. (Complaint ¶¶ 87, 89.)

Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants on October 4, 2022, raising claims for (1) violation of Civil Code, section 1942.4; (2) tortuous [sic] breach of warranty of habitability; (3) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (4) nuisance; (5) violation of Business & Professions Code, sections 17200, set seq.; (6) negligence and negligent hiring and training; (7) intrusion under Civil Code, section 1708.85; and (8) violations of Anti-Tenant Harassment Ordinances LAMC 49.99 and 445.33.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on January 24, 2024. Responding Plaintiffs filed an opposition and Defendants filed a reply.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants request that the Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Defendants’ First Amended Answer. The Court denies this request as moot because those materials are already in the record.

Legal Standard

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (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.) 

“In ruling on the motion, the court must consider all of the evidence and all of the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom [citation] and must view such evidence [citations] and such inferences [citations] in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” (Aguilar, supra, at pp. 844-845 [quotation marks omitted].) 

“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 defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)

“Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.) To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

Discussion

Summary Judgment

Defendants argue that the Agreements release them from liability for all of Plaintiffs’ claims in this action. Plaintiffs argue that no valid agreements were formed.

Both of the Agreements expressly disclaim any release of future claims unrelated to the window leaks. (Ex. B at p. 1; Ex. C at p. 1.) The Agreements were executed on May 4, 2022 and May 5, 2022.

Plaintiffs allege in their anti-tenant harassment claim that in May, June, and July of an unspecified year, apparently either 2021 or 2022, Defendants have harassed Plaintiffs and threatened Plaintiffs with harm if Plaintiffs do not voluntarily vacate the Premises. (Complaint ¶ 86.) Plaintiffs allege that this ‘campaign’ against them has continued at least through the time at which the Complaint was filed in October 2022. (Complaint ¶¶ 87, 89.) These events are therefore not covered by the Agreements, which they post-date.

It is true that Responding Plaintiffs do not provide evidence of these events in their separate statement. However, it is not their burden – at least initially – to do so. “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., supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 1519.) Defendants have not shown that there is a lack of triable issue of material fact on the anti-tenant harassment claim, either due to the Agreements or for any other reason.

Because Defendants have not shown that they are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the anti-harassment claim, the Court denies the motion for summary judgment.

Motion for Summary Adjudication

“If summary adjudication is sought, whether separately or as an alternative to the motion for summary judgment, the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion[.]” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350, subd. (b).)

Defendants do not identify the issues on which they seek summary adjudication in the notice, nor is this clear from their brief or separate statement. The Court therefore denies the motion for summary adjudication of issues.