Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV01097, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01097    Hearing Date: August 24, 2023    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           SM 10000 Property LLC v. Roberts, et al.

CASE NO.:                22SMCV01097

MOTION:                  Motion for Summary Judgment

HEARING DATE:   8/24/2023

Legal Standard

            A party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding. (CCP, § 437c(a).) “The purpose of the law of summary judgment 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. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)

“A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs.” (CCP, § 437c(f)(1).) If a party seeks summary adjudication as an alternative to a request for summary judgment, the request must be clearly made in the notice of the motion. (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1542, 1544.)  “[A] party may move for summary adjudication of a legal issue or a claim for damages other than punitive damages that does not completely dispose of a cause of action, affirmative defense, or issue of duty pursuant to” subdivision (t). (CCP, § 437c(t).) 

            To prevail, the evidence submitted must show there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (CCP, § 437c(c).) The motion cannot succeed unless the evidence leaves no room for conflicting inferences as to material facts; the court has no power to weigh one inference against another or against other evidence. (Murillo v. Rite Stuff Food Inc. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 833, 841.) In determining whether the facts give rise to a triable issue of material fact, “[a]ll doubts as to whether any material, triable, issues of fact exist are to be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment…” (Gold v. Weissman (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1195, 1198-99.) “In other words, the facts alleged in the evidence of the party opposing summary judgment and the reasonable inferences there from must be accepted as true.” (Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 171, 179.) However, if adjudication is otherwise proper the motion “may not be denied on grounds of credibility,” except when a material fact is the witness’s state of mind and “that fact is sought to be established solely by the [witness’s] affirmation thereof.” (CCP, § 437c(e).) 

            Once the moving party has met their burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party “to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.” (CCP § 437c(p)(1).) “[T]here is no obligation on the opposing party... to establish anything by affidavit unless and until the moving party has by affidavit stated facts establishing every element... necessary to sustain a judgment in his favor.” (Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468.) 

“The pleadings play a key role in a summary judgment motion. The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues and to frame the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment proceeding.” (Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 486, 493, quotations and citations omitted.) “Accordingly, the burden of a defendant moving for summary judgment only requires that he or she negate plaintiff's theories of liability as alleged in the complaint; that is, a moving party need not refute liability on some theoretical possibility not included in the pleadings.” (Ibid.) 

Analysis

Plaintiff SM 10000 Property LLC moves for summary judgment against Defendant Paul Roberts. Generally, Plaintiff argues that Defendant materially breached the terms of his Lease Agreement by failing to pay rent, certain technology fees, and utilities from August 2021 through November 2021. Plaintiff presents evidence that Defendant owes $70,856.69 to SM 10000 for the unpaid rent, technology fees, and utilities. Further, Plaintiff seeks to recover $10,000.00 in attorney’s fees and $831.45 in costs pursuant to the attorney’s fees clause in the Lease.

The Complaint alleges a single cause of action for breach of contract, based on the breach of the Lease. (Compl., ¶¶8-13.) “The standard elements of a claim for breach of contract are: ‘(1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) damage to plaintiff therefrom.’” (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.)

In support of their motion, Plaintiff presents the declaration of the general manager of the subject premises, Nicole Browne. Plaintiff operates apartments in a luxury high-rise building at 10000 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90067. (UMF 1.) On May 13, 2020, Defendant entered into the Lease with Plaintiff for the Premises. (UMF 2.) The lease had an initial term of five and a half months running from May 16, 2020 to November 1, 2020, which would then become a month-to-month tenancy. (UMF 3-4.)

Under the Lease Agreement, rent was $12,320.00 per month, due on the first day of each calendar month. (UMF 5.) $11,200.00 is the base rent and a premium of $1,120.00 in consideration for a short lease term. (UMF 6.) Defendant agreed to pay $5,000.00 per month in furniture rental fees. (UMF 7.) Defendant agreed to pay for separately supplied and metered electricity to the premises and a technology service fee of $150.00 per month. (UMF 8.) Defendant also agreed to pay club membership dues of $300.00 per month. (UMF 9.) Further, if a resident fails to make any payment of rent due and fails to cure the deficiency within 5 days, the resident is subject to $400.00 in liquidated damages. (UMF 16.)

Defendant paid a refundable security deposit of $12,320.00 as surety against damages to the Premises, a refundable furniture deposit of $2,000.00 as surety against wear and tear to the leased furniture, and a refundable club amenity deposit of $2,000.00 as surety for membership in the private club. (UMF 10.)

Plaintiff maintained a resident ledger for Defendant, summarizing Plaintiff’s charges to Defendant and payments by Defendant during his tenancy. (UMF 11-13.) Plaintiff’s ledger reflects that Defendant did not make a payment from August 1, 2021, through November 30, 2021. (UMF 14.) Indeed, Defendant failed to pay rent timely in each of the months from August 2021 through November 2021. (UMF 15.) Defendant failed to make any furniture rental payments in the months August 2021 through November 2021, which amounted to $20,000.00. (UMF 17-18.) The total rent, technology and utility fees, furniture rental, late payment fees, repair, and cleaning costs Defendant owed under the terms of the lease are $70,856.69. (UMF 19.)

Under the terms of the Lease the prevailing party in any action to enforce the Lease is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and the costs of litigation as provided in paragraph 34: “ATTORNEY’S FEES: In the event of any litigation to enforce this Lease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees, not to exceed a total of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), and its costs of litigation.” (UMF 23.) From December 2021 through February 2023, Plaintiff incurred more than $10,000 in reasonable attorney’s fees for the preparation and litigation of this action to enforce the Lease. (UMF 26.) Plaintiff presents the declaration of counsel in support of the requested fees. (Olsen Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) Plaintiff also incurred $831.45 in costs of litigation in the preparation and litigation of this suit. (UMF 28.)

Plaintiff also seeks prejudgment interest running from December 1, 2021, through May 1, 2023. (Civ. Code § 3287(a).) Defendant incurred prejudgment interest in the total amount of $12,399.92 on the outstanding debt for rent, utilities, technology fees, late fees, and furniture rental from August 1, 2021 through November 30, 2021. (UMF 33-35.)

Plaintiff demonstrates that Defendant breached the material terms of the Lease by failing to pay rent, utility bills and furniture rent. Plaintiff demonstrates with competent evidence that Defendant owes Plaintiff $94,088.06 in rent, fees, costs, and interest. Thus, Plaintiff meets its initial burden to demonstrate entitlement to judgment. Defendant has failed to oppose, and therefore fails to demonstrate a dispute of material fact.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.