Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC04140, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC04140     Hearing Date: January 10, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Village Park Green Apartments

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Village Park Green Apartments is GRANTED.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300)             OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a)                                     OK

[X] 75/80 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b))                     OK

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On June 20, 2022, Plaintiff Village Park Green Apartments (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Gary Michael Green (“Defendant”), for breach of contract arising out of an alleged Rental Agreement and/or Lease of property located at 4460 Overland Avenue, Apartment No. 8, Culver City, CA 90230.  (Compl.)

On August 12, 2022, Defendant, in propria persona, filed an Answer generally denying each statement of the Complaint.

On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”).  No opposition has been filed.

II.              Legal Standard

A party seeking summary judgment has the burden of producing evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle him/her to judgment as a matter of law.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c).)  The moving party must make an affirmative showing that he/she is entitled to judgment irrespective of whether or not the opposing party files an opposition.  (Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733, 742-743.)  Thus, “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 (citing Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)

When a plaintiff seeks summary judgment, he/she must produce admissible evidence on each element of each cause of action on which judgment is sought.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(1).)  When a defendant seeks summary judgment, he/she has the “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, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.”  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).)

The opposing party on a motion for summary judgment is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until the moving party meets his or her initial movant’s burden.  (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.)  Once the initial movant’s burden is met, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show, with admissible evidence, that there is a triable issue requiring the weighing procedures of trial.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p).)  The opposing party may not simply rely on his/her allegations to show a triable issue but must present evidentiary facts that are substantial in nature and rise beyond mere speculation.  (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 162.)  Summary judgment must be granted “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.)

As to any alternative request for summary adjudication of issues, such alternative relief must be clearly set forth in the Notice of Motion and the general burden-shifting rules apply but the issues upon which summary adjudication may be sought are limited by statute.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(f)(1).)  “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.”  (Ibid.)

III.            Discussion

Plaintiff seeks a court order granting summary judgment in its favor and against Defendant on ground that there is no triable issue of material fact and Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.  (Mot. pp. 1-2.)

“The standard elements of a claim for breach of contract are: ‘(1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) damage to plaintiff therefrom.’”  (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.)

As the moving party, Plaintiff has the burden to show, through admissible evidence, that there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to each element of a cause of action for breach of contract.

Plaintiff has submitted the declaration of Peter A. Wissner, a general partner of Village Park Green Apartments in support of its Motion.  Wissner states that Plaintiff Village Park Green Apartments, a landlord, entered into a written Rental Agreement and/or Lease with Defendant Green, tenant, on or about October 31, 2015, in respect to property located at 4460 Overland Avenue, Apt. 8, Culver City, CA 90230 (“Unit”).  (Wissner Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.)  Plaintiff has attached a copy of the Agreement as Exhibit A.  (Ibid.)  In November 2019, notice was provided to Defendant that beginning on January 1, 2020, monthly rent for the Unit would be increased to $1,895.00 per month.  (Ibid.)

Defendant has breached the Agreement because he did not pay rent due for the months of April 2020 to February 2021, amounting to $20,845.00.  (Ibid. at ¶¶ 3, 5.)  Due to Defendant’s failure to pay rent, Plaintiff applied for assistance through the COVID-19 Rent Relief Program.  (Ibid. at ¶ 4, Exs. B-C.)  The Program requires both the landlord and the tenant to provide information and documentation to qualify for rental assistance.  (Ibid.; Ex. B.)  Plaintiff has submitted verification that it had applied for payment under this Program with respect to the Unit.  (Ibid., Ex. C.)  Plaintiff received a check from the Program for unpaid rent for the period of April 2020 to February 2021 in the amount of $20,845.00.  (Ibid. at ¶ 5, Exs. D-E.)  A separate payment of $3,086.34 was made directly to Defendant to pay for utility reimbursement.  (Ibid.)

Defendant has also breached the Agreement by failing to pay rent due for an additional 13-month period: March 2020, March 2021 to January 2022, and April 2022, for a total unpaid rent in the sum of $24,635.00.  (Ibid. at ¶ 6.)  On or about September 30, 2021, Defendant delivered to Plaintiff a Declaration of Covid-19 Related Financial Distress and made a one-time payment of $6,158.75.  (Ibid.)  However, there is a balance of unpaid rent remaining in the sum of $18,476.25.  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff has attempted to get additional assistance from the Rent Relief Program with respect to the Unit; however, as of the date of the instant motion, Plaintiff has not received any additional money from the Program.  (Ibid. at ¶ 7.)  Wissner contacted representatives of the Program and was informed that no further payments could be made until Defendant provided missing information.  (Ibid.)  On May 31, 2022, a letter was sent to Defendant on behalf of Plaintiff requesting that Defendant provide additional information to complete Plaintiff’s application to the Program.  (Ibid. at ¶ 8, Ex. F.)  Plaintiff has not received a response to its letter and believes that Defendant has not contacted the State of California to provide additional information and allow Plaintiff to receive assistance under the Program.  (Ibid. at ¶ 8.)  As of the date of the instant motion, Plaintiff is owed unpaid rent in the amount of $18,476.25.  (Ibid. at ¶ 9.)

Defendant has not filed an Opposition or any objections to the instant Motion to argue that there is a genuine dispute of material fact.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to establish the existence of the Rental Agreement and Defendant’s breach by failing to abide by the terms of the agreement, including failure to participate in the Rent Relief Program that would compensate Plaintiff for unpaid rent.  As a result, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $18,476.25 for the months Defendant has not paid rent.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has met its burden and is entitled to summary judgment on its cause of action for breach of contract.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Village Park Green Apartments is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.