TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff City of Santa Monica’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.

Plaintiff City of Santa Monica to give notice.

REASONING

Plaintiff City of Santa Monica (“the City”) moves the Court for an order granting summary adjudication in its favor against Defendant Eric Todd Goldie (“Defendant”) as to the City’s cause of action for failure to provide relocation assistance. Defendant has not filed an opposition to the City’s motion. While the moving party generally bears the initial burden of proof on its motion, and lack of opposition will not automatically entitle the moving party to prevail on its motion, a party’s failure to file an opposition can be considered a concession that the motion is meritorious. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Legal Standard

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “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. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) 

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467 (Avivi).)

“Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, 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.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) “[T]he court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection) . . . in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

Analysis

To establish a cause of action for failure to provide relocation assistance under the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the City must show that Defendant violated Santa Monica Municipal Code section 4.36.100(a)(2) and section 4.36.100(a)(3), which provide that “[a] landlord is required to provide temporary relocation benefits to tenants as required by this Section when . . . [a] rental housing unit has been rendered uninhabitable, necessitating the tenant(s) of the housing unit to no longer dwell within that unit” or “[a] tenant is required to vacate a rental housing unit upon the order of any government officer or agency.” (See Compl. ¶ 28.)

In the complaint, the City alleges that on October 19, 2020, Santa Monica Code Enforcement issued an order for Defendant, owner of the property at 2022 Delaware Avenue, Unit 2, to provide temporary tenant relocation benefits to his tenant after he carried out flooding remediation work without a permit, making it impossible to know if the apartment was safe for the tenant and her family, and bacteria was later found in the walls. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 13-14.) More than 20 months after the order and more than 10 months after he exhausted his appeals, Defendant has refused to provide the benefit. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 15-25.)

The City provides evidence that on October 19, 2020, after an inspection of the property located at 2022 Delaware Avenue, Unit 2 in Santa Monica, Code Enforcement Examiner Jorge Arellano and Building Inspector Jim Brewster issued Habitability Determination and Relocation Order C1237, finding the property uninhabitable and ordering Defendant, the landlord, to provide temporary tenant relocation benefits as of October 19, 2020, based on their determination that sewage flood remediation construction had been completed without permits and inspections to ensure safety. (City UMF Nos. 1, 2.) The tenants were displaced from their home from on October 19, 2020, when the relocation order was issued, until November 12, 2020, when the unit was cleared for them to move back in. (City UMF Nos. 3, 32.) Defendant submitted his appeal request form seeking a hearing to appeal the relocation order on October 21, 2020, but he never sought or obtained a stay in the administrative appeal, nor did he provide the relocation benefit. (City UMF Nos. 4, 5.) Defendant was sent a notice of hearing on the appeal, the parties provided evidence, the hearing was conducted in a judicial-like adversary proceeding, a transcript was prepared, and the hearing officer issued a decision on the appeal on March 19, 2021, finding that the relocation was order was valid. (City UMF Nos. 10, 12-19.) On May 12, 2021, Defendant filed a notice of appeal of the hearing, and the case was assigned as Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21STLC03687. (City UMF Nos. 26, 27.) The City moved for dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on Defendant’s citation to an inapplicable statute, and the action was dismissed with prejudice. (City UMF Nos. 28, 29.) Defendant again did not obtain a stay in the superior court appeal, and, to date, Defendant has paid less than $1,000 of the amount owed. (City UMF Nos. 30, 31.) At the time of the tenant’s displacement, the per diem relocation benefit rate for a family of five with two cats was $545, for a total relocation amount of $12,080, which consists of 24 days of relocation, minus $1,000 already paid, plus interest and a $500 civil penalty pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code section 4.36.090(b), for a total of $12,580. (City UMF Nos. 33, 34.)

The doctrine of collateral estoppel, “an aspect of res judicata,” provides that “an issue necessarily decided in prior litigation may be conclusively determined as against the parties or their privies in a subsequent lawsuit on a different cause of action.” (Patel v. Crown Diamonds, Inc. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 29, 39, italics omitted.) “[F]ive threshold requirements must be satisfied” for the doctrine to apply:

First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be identical to that decided in a former proceeding. Second, this issue must have been actually litigated in the former proceeding. Third, it must have been necessarily decided in the former proceeding. Fourth, the decision in the former proceeding must be final and on the merits. Finally, the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding.

(Y.K.A. Industries, Inc. v. Redevelopment Agency of City of San Jose (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 339, 356-357.) The prior administrative hearing satisfies the requirements for the application of collateral estoppel because the parties were the same, the issue was whether Defendant owed relocation benefits, i.e., whether the relocation order was valid, the issue was litigated, the hearing was a judicial-like adversary proceeding with the introduction of evidence, and the hearing officer’s order was final and on the merits. It follows that collateral estoppel applies as to the administrative hearing decision, and the evidence shows that Defendant failed to pay the relocation benefits owed. Thus, the City has shown that no triable issue of material fact exists as to whether Defendant is liable for failure to pay relocation benefits. Upon shifting the burden to Defendant, Defendant has failed to create a triable issue on this claim by failing to oppose the present motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff City of Santa Monica’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.