Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STUD06820, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STUD06820 Hearing Date: October 3, 2023 Dept: 25
10626 Budlong Management v. Argueta
22STUD06820
ANALYSIS:
I. Background
On November 14, 2022, Plaintiff 10626 Budlong Management LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Gabriela Hernandez Argueta (“Defendant”), for an unlawful detainer when Defendant was still in possession of the unit.
On January 24, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with written discovery requests, including a Request for Admission. Defendant failed to respond.
On February 21, 2023, Defendant returned possession of the premises to Plaintiff.
On March 23, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted and all of the Request for Admissions against Defendant were deemed admitted.
On April 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment for monetary damages.
II. Legal Standard
Burdens on Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is proper “if all the papers submitted 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(c).) Where a defendant seeks summary judgment or adjudication, he must show that either “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 that cause of action.” (Id. at §437c(o)(2).) A defendant may satisfy this burden by showing that the claim “cannot be established” because of the lack of evidence on some essential element of the claim. (Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 574, 590.) Once the defendant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a “triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or defense thereto.” (Id.)
The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) A defendant moving for summary judgment must show either (1) that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or (2) that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(p).) A defendant may discharge this burden by furnishing either (1) affirmative evidence of the required facts or (2) discovery responses conceding that the plaintiff lacks evidence to establish an essential element of the plaintiff's case. If a defendant chooses the latter option, he or she must present evidence “and not simply point out that plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence….” (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 865-66.)
[A] defendant may simply show the plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of the cause of action “by showing that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” (Id. at p. 854.) Thus, rather than affirmatively disproving or negating an element (e.g., causation), a defendant moving for summary judgment has the option of presenting evidence reflecting the plaintiff does not possess evidence to prove that element. “The defendant may, but need not, present evidence that conclusively negates an element of the plaintiff's cause of action. The defendant may also present evidence that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence—as through admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has discovered nothing” to support an essential element of his case. (Aguilar, supra, at p. 855.) Under the latter approach, a defendant's initial evidentiary showing may “consist of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses, the plaintiff's factually devoid discovery responses, or admissions by the plaintiff in deposition or in response to requests for admission that he or she has not discovered anything that supports an essential element of the cause of action.” (Lona v. Citibank, N.A., supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 110.) In other words, a defendant may show the plaintiff does not possess evidence to support an element of the cause of action by means of presenting the plaintiff's factually devoid discovery responses from which an absence of evidence may be reasonably inferred. (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Construction Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 83.)
Thus, a moving defendant has two means by which to shift the burden of proof under the summary judgment statute: “The defendant may rely upon factually insufficient discovery responses by the plaintiff to show that the plaintiff cannot establish an essential element of the cause of action sued upon. [Citation.] [Or a]lternatively, the defendant may utilize the tried and true technique of negating (‘disproving’) an essential element of the plaintiff's cause of action.”
(Leyva v. Garcia (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1095, 1103.)
Until the moving defendant has discharged its burden of proof, the opposing plaintiff has no burden to come forward with any evidence. Once the moving defendant has discharged its burden as to a particular cause of action, however, the plaintiff may defeat the motion by producing evidence showing that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(p)(2).) On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party's supporting documents are strictly construed and those of his opponent liberally construed, and doubts as to the propriety of summary judgment should be resolved against granting the motion. (D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 21.)
Discussion
a. Unlawful Detainer (First Cause of Action)
A tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer when:
“The tenant continues in possession, in person or by subtenant, without the permission of the landlord, or the successor in estate of the landlord, if applicable, after default in the payment of rent, pursuant to the lease or agreement under which the property is held, and three days' notice, excluding Saturdays and Sundays and other judicial holidays, in writing, requiring its payment, stating the amount that is due, the name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent payment shall be made, and, if payment may be made personally, the usual days and hours that person will be available to receive the payment (provided that, if the address does not allow for personal delivery, then it shall be conclusively presumed that upon the mailing of any rent or notice to the owner by the tenant to the name and address provided, the notice or rent is deemed received by the owner on the date posted, . . . .”
(CCP § 1161(2).)
“Unlawful detainer is a summary procedure designed principally to enable the landlord to gain speedy possession of the property. That is why the scope of such proceedings is strictly limited. Damages and rent are incidental thereto and are recoverable only because the statute so provides.” (Northrop Corp. v. Chaparral Energy, Inc. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 725, 729.) (internal citations omitted.)
Civil Code § 1952.3 contains procedures for converting an unlawful detainer to “an ordinary civil action” after the possession issue becomes moot by surrender but preserves the landlord's option to pursue a separate action. (Id., 729–730.)
Under Civil Code § 1952.3 if the lessor brings an unlawful detainer proceeding and possession of the property is no longer in issue because possession of the property has been delivered to the lessor before trial or, if there is no trial, before judgment is entered, the case becomes an ordinary civil action in which:
“The lessor may obtain any relief to which he is entitled, including, where applicable, relief authorized by Section 1951.2; but, if the lessor seeks to recover damages described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 1951.2 or any other damages not recoverable in the unlawful detainer proceeding, the lessor shall first amend the complaint pursuant to Section 472 or 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure so that possession of the property is no longer in issue and to state a claim for such damages and shall serve a copy of the amended complaint on the defendant in the same manner as a copy of a summons and original complaint is served.”
(Civil Code § 1952.3(a)(1).)
Here, Plaintiff has not yet amended the Complaint so that possession of property is no longer in issue. Plaintiff is ordered to amend the Complaint and to serve a copy of the amended complaint on the Defendant, prior to this Court’s ruling on summary judgment.
Conclusion
The Court CONTINUES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment to November 8, 2023 at 10:30 am in Department 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse.
Moving party is to give notice of this ruling.