TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff 435 N. Roxbury Drive, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.

Plaintiff 435 N. Roxbury Drive, LLC shall prepare, serve, and submit a proposed judgment as per statute.

Plaintiff 435 N. Roxbury Drive, LLC to give notice.

REASONING

Plaintiff 435 N. Roxbury Drive, LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves for summary judgment or adjudication as to its complaint on the ground that there is no triable issue of fact as to Plaintiff’s right to immediate possession of the premises and a monetary judgment. Defendants Michael K. Obeng, M.D., PA, Inc. and Michael K. Obeng, M.D. (“Defendants”) have not filed an opposition to Plaintiff’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.)

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.)

“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).)

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay commercial rent owned for the property 435 N. Roxbury Drive, Suite 205, in Beverly Hills, with past due rent of $53,003.72, plus holdover damages. “The basic elements of unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (2), are (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.)

Plaintiff provides undisputed evidence that it entered into a lease with Michael K. Obeng, M.D., PA, Inc. as the tenant and Michael K. Obeng, M.D. as the guarantor in July 2012, as well as a first amendment to the lease in August 2020, and Plaintiff served a five-day notice to pay rent or quit on August 23, 2022. (Pl.’s UMF Nos. 1, 2, 13.) Defendants failed to pay the amount stated in the notice within five business days after it was served. (Pl.’s UMF No. 15.) Plaintiff also provides undisputed evidence that Defendants failed to pay the amount owed as stated in the May 11, 2023, notice, which was served on May 12, 2023, nor have Defendants paid rent for July through October 2023. (Pl.’s UMF Nos. 25, 27-30, 32.) Plaintiff also provides evidence that it has incurred legal fees, which it is entitled to recover under the lease. (Pl.’s UMF Nos. 16, 17, 32, 33.)

This evidence allows Plaintiff to show there is no triable issue of material fact as to its claim for nonpayment of rent. Defendants have failed to oppose the motion and create a triable issue. Plaintiff 435 N. Roxbury Drive, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication is GRANTED. Plaintiff 435 N. Roxbury Drive, LLC shall prepare, serve, and submit a proposed judgment as per statute.