Judge: Lawrence Cho, Case: 24SMUD00755, Date: 2025-06-06 Tentative Ruling

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3501, or via e-mail at samdeptk@lasuperiorcourt.org advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing personally or by Court Call.

Case Number: 24SMUD00755    Hearing Date: June 6, 2025    Dept: K

CASE NAME:           LSF INVESTMENTS v. LANCASTER, et al          

CASE NO.:                24SMUD00755                     

HEARING:                6/6/25                                                

CALENDAR #:         Dept. K                                                                      

                                                                                               

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR OFFSET                                                       HELD:  GRANTED               

 

I

 

                                                 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

 

Plaintiff LSF (“P”) is a landlord who brought an initial unlawful detainer action against these Defendants (“D’s”) in a prior UD case, case number 24SMUD00165 (hereinafter “initial UD”).  P dismissed that action on 2/16/24, and as a result D’s were awarded $1,000 in attorney’s fees on 4/2/24. 

 

P brought this subsequent UD action against D’s on 3/22/24, and won by way of summary judgment on 6/6/24.  In addition to possession, P was awarded monetary damages in the amount of $35,000.   P now seeks to offset that $35,000 judgment with the prior $1,000 award of attorney’s fees to D’s.  That would extinguish P’s $1,000 obligation to D’s and reduce the outstanding balance owed to P from D’s to $34,000.  D’s have objected to this current motion for offset on several grounds including that D’s prior counsel in the initial UD, the law firm of BASTA, Universal, had a prior lien on the $1,000 attorney’s fees award.  P objects to BASTA’s Opposition Brief on the grounds that BASTA has never been counsel of record in this matter and were D’s counsel in the initial UD.  A review of this Court’s records confirms P’s assertion that BASTA has never substituted into this matter and that counsel of record for D’s is Onica Valle Cole, Esq.

 

 

II

 

 

                                                                    ANALYSIS

 

A.    Proper Parties to This Motion

 

As a threshold matter, this Court sustains P’s objection to the Opposition Brief filed by

BASTA on 4/17/25.  While BASTA did represent D’s in the initial UD matter, they have never appeared on behalf of D’s in this matter.  D’s counsel of record has been and still is Onica Valle Cole, Esq., who has not been substituted out.  Nor has BASTA intervened into this matter as a real party in interest.  Simply put, BASTA is a stranger to this action and their 4/17/25 Opposition Brief cannot be considered and is hereby stricken.  As no counsel of record for D’s in this case has filed an opposition to P’s motion at bar, it shall be considered as unopposed.

 

 

B.     Offset

 

Whether a setoff (aka offset) is appropriate in equity is a question within the trial court’s

discretion and requires a weighing of the respective equities of the parties.  Crasnick v. Marquez (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 7-8, citing Brienza v. Tepper (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1839. 

 

One of the factors examined in Crasnick was the solvency of the respective parties.  Crasnick, 248 Cal.App.4th Supp. at 8.  This is relevant here because if D’s are insolvent, P has little chance of ever recovering its $35,000 judgment.  In contrast, as the landlord with at least one tangible asset (the rental property), it is more likely that D’s will be able to collect on their $1,000 attorney’s fee award.  Thus, absent offset, P might have to pay its $1,000 obligation but not be able to recover the far larger judgment of $35,000.  This factor weighs in favor of granting offset such that P could obtain some benefit from its ultimate judgment.

 

The second factor addressed by Crasnick was whether both parties acted inequitably in pursuing their respective actions.  Id.  Here, there is simply no evidence indicating that either party acted inequitably in the litigation of either the initial UD or the one at bar. 

 

The third factor in Crasnick was “the public policy ramifications with respect to attorney’s willingness to agree to represent individuals if they know their fees will be subject to being stripped by subsequent judgments against the clients.”  Id.  Although there is similarly no evidence in the record to reflect the “chilling effect” of applying offset in this case would have on BASTA or future public interest minded tenant’s counsel, one could speculate that generally speaking there could be some deterrent to public policy.  This Court accepts this theory on its face as did Crasnick. 

 

After weighing all these factors and finding the first most persuasive, this Court exercises its discretion is favor of granting offset/setoff. 

 

 

HELD:

 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Offset/Setoff is GRANTED; and as such,

 

n  D’s judgment for $1,000 in attorney’s fees in 24SMUD00165 is deemed satisfied in full;

 

n  P’s judgment for $35,000 in the case at bar is hereby deemed partially satisfied by the amount of the $1,000 offset, thereby leaving a balance of $34,000 yet to be satisfied.




Website by Triangulus