Judge Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case Number: 23SMCV04278, Date: 2024-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case: 23SMCV04278, Date: 2024-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04278 Hearing Date: February 2, 2024 Dept: N

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Val-Chris Investments, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication for Unlawful Detainer is GRANTED.

Plaintiff Val-Chris Investments, Inc. shall prepare, serve, and submit a proposed judgment as per statute.

Plaintiff Val-Chris Investments, Inc. to give notice.

REASONING

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff Val-Chris Investments, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) requests judicial notice of Deed of Trust, Instrument No. 20220668506, recorded June 27, 2022, in the Records of Los Angeles County, Recorder’s Office; Notice of Default, Instrument No. 20230133725, recorded on March 2, 2023, in the Records of Los Angeles County, Recorder’s Office; Notice of Trustee’s Sale, Instrument No. 20230363601, recorded June 5, 2023, in the Records of Los Angeles County, Recorder’s Office; and Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale, Instrument No. 20230595159, recorded September 7,

2023, in the Records of Los Angeles County, Recorder’s Office. Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c).

Analysis

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 claim for unlawful detainer for failure to vacate the property after a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. Defendants Aveta Parsazad, Benjamin Emein, Denise Lane, Orit Ambuehl, Robert Ambuehl, and Victor Lane (“Defendants”) have not filed oppositions 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 it owns the property at 1991 Stradella Road, Los Angeles, California 90077; Plaintiff obtained ownership of the property after a properly noticed and conducted nonjudicial foreclosure sale on July 20, 2023; Plaintiff thereafter perfected its title; Defendants are currently in possession of the property without any right or claim to occupancy or possession; Plaintiff served Defendants with a Three/Thirty/Ninety Day Notice to Quit on September 8, 2023; more than three days have passed since the notice was served; and Defendants remain in possession of the property. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 9-13.)

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a, subdivision (b)(3), “a person who holds over and continues in possession of a manufactured home, mobilehome, floating home, or real property after a three-day written notice to quit the property has been served upon the person, . . . may be removed therefrom . . . [w]here the property has been sold in accordance with Section 2924 of the Civil Code, under a power of sale contained in a deed of trust executed by such person, or a person under whom such person claims, and the title under the sale has been duly perfected.” Thus, Plaintiff must establish that the property was sold in accordance with Civil Code section 2924, Plaintiff has perfected title to the property, and Defendants have held over and continued in possession of the property after the three-day notice to quit was served.

Plaintiff provides undisputed evidence that on June 20, 2022, borrower Stradella Equity Holdings, LLC, by its signatory member Aveta Parsazad, borrowed $540,000.00, secured by the property at 1991 Stradella Road in Los Angeles, with a Deed of Trust recorded on title on June 27, 2022. (Pl.’s UMF No. 1.) Plaintiff was identified on the Deed of Trust as the lender/beneficiary. (Ibid.) On March 2, 2023, the agent for the trustee recorded a Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust against the property, indicating a default of $68,723.50 as of March 1, 2023, and a Notice of Trustee’s Sale was recorded by the agent on June 5, 2023, indicating that the subject property would be sold, and the estimated debt was $687,788.83. (Pl.’s UMF Nos. 2, 3.) On July 20, 2023, the unpaid debt stood at $682,664.21, and a nonjudicial foreclosure sale occurred on the same date, with Plaintiff purchasing the property by placing the highest bid of $625,000.00. (Pl.’s UMF No. 4.) The Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale was recorded on September 7, 2023, and included a recital regarding the notice of default and notice of sale. (Pl.’s UMF Nos. 5, 6.) On September 8, 2023, a Notice to Quit was prepared and served by leaving the documents with a competent member of the household and mailing thereafter. (Pl.’s UMF No. 8.) Plaintiff filed this action on September 12, 2023, more than three days after serving the notice. (Pl.’s UMF No. 10.) However, Defendants remain in possession of the property and continue to claim the right to possess the property, and when Defendants Denise Lane, Victor Lane, Robert Ambuehl, and Orit Ambuehl had Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission deemed against them, it was admitted that they refuse to leave the property, they have no lease agreements, no one is renting the property, and Aveta Parsazad continues to occupy the property. (Pl.’s UMF Nos. 9, 11, 12.)

This evidence allows Plaintiff to show there is no triable issue of material fact as to its claim for unlawful detainer, and Defendants have failed to oppose the motion and create a triable issue. Accordingly, Plaintiff Val-Chris Investments, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication for Unlawful Detainer is GRANTED. Plaintiff Val-Chris Investments, Inc. shall prepare, serve, and submit a proposed judgment as per statute.