Judge: Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case: 22SMUD00647, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22SMUD00647 Hearing Date: August 21, 2023 Dept: N
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BACKGROUND
Unlawful detainer action, later reclassified to unlimited civil. Plaintiff Wilduns MIL LLC owns the property at 9588 West Olympic Boulevard, Unit 6, in Beverly Hills and entered into a one-year written lease with Defendant with subsequent rent increases for monthly rent of $4,587.00. Plaintiff served Defendant with a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit, which expired on May 17, 2022. Plaintiff seeks rent of $9,000 due plus $152.90 per day. Plaintiff seeks possession, forfeiture of the agreement, past-due rent, and holdover damages.
This Motion: Defendant’s MSJ.
TENTATIVE ORDER
Defendant Ingram James; Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
REASONING
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).)
Defendant Ingram James (“Defendant”) moves for summary judgment as to Plaintiff Wilduns MIL LLC (“Plaintiff”)’s unlawful detainer claim on the ground that the amount demanded in the Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit (“the notice”) exceeds the maximum lawful rent permitted for the premises under the Beverly Hills Rent Stabilization Ordinance, and the notice overstates the rent owed.
“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.)
Defendant first argues that the rent demanded exceeds the certified permissible amount under the Beverly Hills Rent Stabilization Ordinance. The notice demands $9,000 in rent for April 2022 and May 2022. (Mot., Michalak Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. D.) Defendant argues that the $4,500 monthly rent requested in the notice exceeds the Certified Permissible Rent Amount of $4,449.00 as stated in the Certified Copy of 2022 Certificate of Registration of Rental Units. (Mot., Michalak Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. B.) Plaintiff states in the First Amended Complaint that the property at 9588 West Olympic Boulevard in Beverly Hills is subject to the Beverly Hills Rent Stabilization Ordinance. (Compl. ¶¶ 7a, 16.)
Section 4-6-12 of the Beverly Hills Rent Stabilization Ordinance, entitled “Remedies,” provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
A. Illegal Rent Or Withholding Of Relocation Fees:
1. It shall be unlawful for any landlord willfully to demand, accept, receive, or retain any payment of rent in excess of the maximum lawful rent permitted for an apartment unit by this chapter. . . .
3. A tenant shall not pay otherwise allowable rent increases under section 4-6-3 of this chapter, if the landlord has failed to substantially comply with the registration requirements of section 4-6-10 of this chapter. The nonpayment of rent increases in good faith pursuant to this paragraph shall be a defense to any action brought to recover possession of a rental unit for nonpayment of rent. . . .
C. Refusal To Comply With Illegal Requests:
1. A tenant may refuse to pay any increase in rent which is in violation of the provisions of this chapter, and such violation shall be a defense in any action brought to recover the possession of an apartment unit or to collect rent.
2. In addition to the remedies set forth in subsection C1 of this section, in any action brought to recover the possession of an apartment unit, the court may consider as grounds for denial of the request for possession any violation of any provision of this chapter.
The evidence presented by Defendant allows Defendant to meet his burden of establishing a complete defense to Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer claim based on nonpayment of rent, as the notice shows that Plaintiff demanded rent beyond the amount set forth in the Certified Copy of 2022 Certificate of Registration of Rental Units.
For the reasons stated, the Motion is GRANTED.
Moving party to give notice.