Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 24NWCV01129, Date: 2024-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NWCV01129    Hearing Date: October 2, 2024    Dept: C

This is an unlawful detainer action. Plaintiff moves ex parte to enter judgment pursuant to stipulation.

For the landlord to obtain immediate entry of judgment and issuance of a writ, the stipulation must cover all the essentials of the judgment. (See Rooney v Vermont Inv. Corp. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 351, 368.) When a stipulation sets forth all the terms of a judgment agreed on by the parties, the mere filing of the stipulation provides a sufficient basis for entry of judgment on either party’s ex parte application. (See Heller v Dyerville Mfg. Co. (1897) 116 Cal. 127.) But if the stipulation omits any essential element, judgment cannot be entered until the missing element is supplied by proof or further stipulation. (See Rooney v Vermont Inv. Corp., supra, 10 Cal.3d 351 at pg. 368.) 

Here, the parties stipulated that Plaintiff will be awarded “forfeiture of the commercial lease”; restitution of the leased premises located at 13855 Struikman Road, Cerritos, California 90703; monetary judgment in the amount of $104,996.70 for back due rents, late fees, and property taxes owed.

The parties further stipulate that there shall be stay of said entry of judgment and no lockout as long as Defendant pays certain sums periodically; also, if Defendant does not pay the above amounts, that Plaintiff may enter this stipulation for judgment of possession and money by ex parte application and declaration of Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s attorney re default. Upon the ex parte application, the Court shall immediately enter judgment for possession in favor of Plaintiff, forfeiture of the lease, and award Plaintiff restitution of the premises located at 13855 Struikman Road, Cerritos, California 90703 and for the monetary sum of $104,996.70 for back due rents owed for October 2023 and March 31, 2024, plus any additional amounts that come due less credit for any amounts paid according to the stipulation.

Plaintiff’s attorney attests that Defendant defaulted. (Decl. Petersen, ¶ 6.)

The stipulation does not provide for posting of the sheriff’s notice with a stay only on the final act of eviction by the sheriff, but given the circumstances, these are not essential terms. (Cal. Landlord-Tenant Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar. 2024) § 9.18 C.)

Based on this, the Court grants the motion.