Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 24NWUD00970, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 24NWUD00970, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NWUD00970 Hearing Date: August 14, 2024 Dept: C

LAKESIDE PLAZA ANAHEIM, LP v. HAMID REZAEI

CASE NO.: 24NWUD00970

HEARING: 8/14/24 @ 10:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Lakeside Plaza Anaheim, LP’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give notice.

This motion is unopposed as of August 13, 2024.

Background

This is an unlawful detainer action over a commercial tenancy. On May 14, 2024, Plaintiff Lakeside Plaza Anaheim, LP filed a complaint alleging one cause of action for unlawful detainer. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hamid Rezaei owes plaintiff $19,332.00 in unpaid rent for the lease of 9532 Whittier Blvd., Pico Rivera, California 90660 and $127.40 for each day Defendant has occupied the subject premises beginning May 1, 2024.

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment.

Legal Standard

“[A] motion for summary judgment shall be granted 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 a judgment as a matter of law.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make prima facie showing no triable material fact issues. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) If the moving party meets this burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a converse prima facie showing that a triable issue of material fact exists. (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs may shift the burden of proof by submitting evidence as to every element of the cause of action. (Code Civ. Pro., §437c, subd. (p)(1); WRI Opportunity Loans II, LLC v. Cooper (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 525, 532.) Unlike former law, it is not plaintiff’s burden to disprove affirmative defenses asserted by the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the basis that all the elements for unlawful detainer have been met and the undisputed facts show that there is no triable issue of material fact.

The elements of unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent are the following: “(1) the tenant is in possession of the premises; (2) that possession is without permission; (3) the tenant is in default for nonpayment of rent; (4) the tenant has been properly served with a written three-day notice; and (5) the default continues after the three-day notice period has elapsed.” (Kruger v. Reyes (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10, 16.)

Here, the first two elements are met because Defendant is in possession of the premises, and Defendant has refused to relinquish possession of the premises, despite Plaintiff’s termination of the lease after the Three-Day Notice Period had run. (Decl. Bui, ¶ 6.) The third element is met because Defendant is in default for failure to pay the full amount of rent from November 2023 and on. (Decl. Bui, ¶ 5.) The fourth element is met because Plaintiff has provided proof that it served Defendant with the required written three-day notice on April 30, 2024, and that the notice complied with the requirements under California law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161(2); Decl. Bui, ¶ 5, Ex. 2.) The fifth element is met because Defendant’s nonpayment continued after the three-day notice period, as the $17,021.20 has not been paid. (Decl. Bui, ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff has shown that there is no triable issue of material fact as to the unlawful detainer cause of action. The burden then shifts to Defendant to prove a triable issue of material fact exists, but the motion is unopposed.

Thus, the motion is GRANTED.