Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 25STCV01519, Date: 2025-05-07 Tentative Ruling

This is an unlawful detainer (“UD”) action by plaintiff Charter Glen Co. LP (“Plaintiff”) against defendant Eun Ho Choi dba Sushi (“Defendant”) for possession of the real property located at 5600 Wilshire Blvd., #C, Los Angeles, CA 90036 (the “Premises”), past rent due of $83,970.82, and forfeiture of the agreement. Defendant is self-represented.

On January 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a verified UD Judicial Council Form complaint against Defendant.

On March 5, 2025, Plaintiff requested this case be set for trial. The court set a status conference re: trial date for March 17, 2025.

On March 17, 2025, Plaintiff appeared for the status conference. Defendant did not appear. The court continued the status conference to April 1, 2025.

On March 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order deeming admitted the facts set forth in Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admissions. Defendant did not file an opposition. On April 14, 2025, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion unopposed and deemed admitted the admissions requests against Defendant.

On April 1, 2025, the court scheduled a jury trial for May 5, 2025. The final status conference was scheduled for April 14, 2025.

On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff appear for the final status conference. Defendant failed to appear. On the same day, Plaintiff filed this motion for summary judgment against Defendant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1170.7 and 437c and concurrently filed an ex parte application to shorten time on its summary judgment motion.

On May 2, 2025, the court granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application unopposed. Pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, the hearing for Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was advanced to May 7, 2025 and the jury trial was continued to May 19, 2025.

In a UD proceeding, a “motion for summary judgment may be made at any time after the answer is filed upon giving five-days notice. Summary judgment shall be granted or denied on the same basis as a motion under Section 437c.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1170.7.)[1]

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment “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. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)¿ A plaintiff reaches its burden on summary judgment by showing prima facie evidence for each element of its cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc, § 437c, subd. (p); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519 (Scalf).) The burden will then shift to the defendant to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact for at least one element of the cause of action at issue. (Ibid.)

Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment or summary adjudication and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.) However, if all inferences reasonably deducible from the submitted evidence are uncontradicted by other inferences and there is no triable issue as to any material fact, the moving party is entitled to summary adjudication as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the ground that Defendant has by this court's ruling on April 14, 2025, admitted the truth of certain matters establishing Plaintiff's right to possession of the Premises, damages calculated at the daily rental value of $382.38, and past rent due in the sum of $93,970.82.

To prevail on its motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff needs to show prima facie evidence for each element of its cause of action alleging UD. (Code Civ. Proc, § 437c, subd. (p); Scalf, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 1519.)

The necessary elements for a cause of action alleging commercial unlawful detainer are: (1) a verified complaint; (2) facts on which the plaintiff seeks to recover; (3) a description of premises with reasonable certainty; (4) the amount of rent in default if the action is based on paragraph Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (2); and (5) the specific method used to serve the defendant with the notice or notices of termination.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1166.) A tenant of real property is guilty of unlawful detainer “[w]hen the tenant continues in possession … without the permission of the landlord … after default in the payment of rent, pursuant to the lease or agreement under which the property is held, and three days’ notice … in writing, requiring its payment … shall have been served upon the tenant…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161, subd. (2).)

4. On January 10, 2025, Defendant was served with the 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit;

6. Defendant did not comply with the 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit at any time;

7. At all times since February 1, 2025 to the present, the fair market rental value of the Premises was never below $382.38 per day;

8. Breach of warranty of habitability is not available to Defendant as a defense to this action for unlawful detainer;

9. At no time did Plaintiff breach an implied warranty of habitability at the Premises;

11. Plaintiff has not violated any provision of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 in relation to the Premises;

12. Plaintiff has fully complied with all requirements of the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 in relation to the Premises;

13. Plaintiff is not estopped to terminate Defendant's right to possession of the Premises in this action for unlawful detainer;

14. At no time has Plaintiff waived any rights against Defendant in relation to the Premises;

16. Defendant agreed to pay rent to Plaintiff in the amount of $11,471.45 per month;

17. Defendant has no evidence to support the affirmative defenses Defendant has pleaded in their Answer to the Complaint filed in this action;

22. Defendant admits the genuineness of the Proof of Service of the 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit.

Based on the foregoing evidence, Plaintiff meets its initial summary judgment burden, and the burden shifts to Defendant to show a triable issue of material facts. (See Scalf, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 1519.) Defendant has not filed opposition.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff Charter Glen Co. LP’s motion for summary judgment as to its cause of action for unlawful detainer against Defendant Eun Ho Choi dba Sushi.

Judgment is hereby ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff Charter Glen Co. LP and against Defendant Eun Ho Choi dba Sushi in the principal amount of $93,970.82 and for possession of real property located at 5600 Wilshire Blvd., #C, Los Angeles, CA 90036.

The rental agreement is ORDERED canceled. Plaintiff may submit to the clerk, forthwith for processing, a writ of possession for 5600 Wilshire Blvd., #C, Los Angeles, CA 90036. Plaintiff may also submit a formal judgment for the court’s signature.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] A hearing on a summary judgment motion may be heard within 30 days of the trial date as subdivisions (a) and (b) of CCP section 437c do not apply to actions brought pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 1159) of Title 3 of Part 3, which include unlawful detainer actions.

[2] The 3-Day Notice states, in relevant part, “YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to the lease or rental agree-ment under which you hold the possession of the hereinafter described premises there is now due, unpaid and delinquent rent in the total sum of $93,970.82, representing the rent due for the period FEB. 1, 2024 THROUGH JAN. 31, 2025.” (Block Decl., Ex. 2 attached to Ex. 2, emphasis in original.)