Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV38968, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38968    Hearing Date: August 9, 2023    Dept: 55

QUEEN ESTHER SQUARE, LP v. TRIMMER,                                       22STCV38968

Hearing Date:  8/9/23,  Dept. 55.

#7:   MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO DEFENDANT KEN TRIMMER AND COURT JUDGMENT AF'TER DEFAULT AS TO DEFENDANT CLAUDIA TRIMMER.

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

MP:  Plaintiff

RP:  

Summary

On 12/15/22, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that defendants Ken Trimmer and Claudia Trimmer breached a written commercial lease of  real property, by not paying rent due.

The causes of action are:

1.      BREACH OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT

2.      ACCOUNT STATED

3.      MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order granting summary judgment against Defendant Ken Trimmer, in the amount $65,514.23, or granting summary adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims, on grounds including the following:

·         The Answer filed by defendant K. Trimmer admitted the following: "We owe back rent but the attorneys fee's are excessive." (See, Ex. "6" to RIN).

·         The declaration of Josh Pebet proves the amount of unpaid rent.

·         On or about September 18, 2022, Defendants assigned the Lease Agreement to a third party and plaintiff consented to the assignment. Therefore, Plaintiff only seeks damages through September 17, 2022, not the end of the term of the Lease Agreement, April 30, 2024.

Tentative Ruling

The unopposed motion for summary judgment is granted, as prayed.  CCP   § 437(c ).

As to co-Defendant Claudia Trimmer, default prove-up procedures will be followed, as to the default entered 2/22/23.  CCP   § 585.

The Court determines that there are no triable issues of material fact, as to each issue raised, including whether defendants owe rent in the total amount $65,514.23 for breach of a commercial lease agreement  (e.g., Josh Pebet decl.).

“[I]f all the papers submitted by the parties show there is no triable issue of material fact and the ‘moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c)), the court must grant the motion for summary judgment.”  Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1320.  Accord  Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409.