Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV01960, Date: 2023-01-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01960    Hearing Date: January 11, 2023    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           2644 SM Partners LP, et al., v. Clare | Matrix, et al.

CASE NO.:                22SMCV01960

MOTION:                  Motion for Summary Judgment

HEARING DATE:   1/11/2023

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 2644 SM Partners brings this action for unlawful detainer in connection with space leased by Defendant Clare | Matrix (“Clare”) in a commercial building owned by Plaintiff located at 2644 30th Street, Santa Monica, CA. Plaintiff alleges that Clare has failed to perform under the terms of its lease by failing to pay the rent and charges for the months of September and October 2022.

Unlawful detainer is a summary proceeding to determine the right of possession of real property. (Culver Center Partners East #1, L.P. v. Baja Fresh Westlake Village, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal. App. 4th 744, 749.) Generally, in order to take advantage of this summary remedy, the landlord must demonstrate “strict compliance” with the statutory notice requirements. (See Id. [discussing CCP § 1161].)  Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2), the basic elements of unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent 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; see Levitz Furniture Co. of the Pac., Inc. v. Wingtip Communications, Inc. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1035, 1038 [a three-day notice that overstates the amount of rent due is wholly ineffective and will not support an unlawful detainer action].)

“The purpose of the unlawful detainer statutes is to provide the landlord with a summary, expeditious way of getting back his property when a tenant fails to pay the rent or refuses to vacate the premises at the end of his tenancy. If a defendant were allowed to assert affirmative defenses or cross-claims which were irrelevant to the right of immediate possession, the summary character of the proceedings would be lost. A defense which ‘arises out of the subject matter’ of the original suit, and, thus, is permitted in the usual case, is normally excluded in an unlawful detainer if the defense is extrinsic to the issue of possession [Citation]. This does not mean the defendant may not present any defense; rather, he may only assert those defenses which, if proven, would either preserve his possession as a tenant or preclude the landlord from recovering possession [Citation].” 

(Nork v. Pacific Coast Medical Enterprises, Inc. (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 410, 413.) 

Here, the evidence demonstrates that on July 2, 2018, Plaintiff and Clare Foundation, Inc., entered into an Office Lease (the “Master Lease,” and as amended, the Lease) for a total of 9,178 rentable square feet in the nuilding commonly known as Suite 100. (Ipale Decl., ¶ 1, Ex. 1.) The lease obligates Defendants to pay monthly rent and other charges.  However, Clare failed to pay Rent due under the Lease for September 2022 and October 2022. (¶ 4, 9.) Accordingly, on October 4, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant with a Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit giving Defendant three (3) days to deliver the unpaid rents to Plaintiff for September 2022 and October 2022, in the estimated amount of $109,180.60, or quit the Premises and deliver up possession to Plaintiff. (¶ 10, Ex. 3.) Defendant failed to cure or vacate as required by the notice to pay or quit. (¶ 11.) Defendant thus failed to pay all rent and charges under the lease. Defendant remains in possession without Plaintiff’s consent. (¶ 12.)

Plaintiff claims damages under Code of Civil Procedure § 1174 (b). Under that section, the court “shall also assess the damages occasioned to the plaintiff by any forcible entry, or by any forcible or unlawful detainer, alleged in the complaint and proved on the trial, and find the amount of any rent due, if the alleged unlawful detainer be after default in the payment of rent.” Here, Plaintiff has been sustaining additional damages in the approximate amount of $1,794,75 per day from November 1, 2022, through November 30, 2022. (¶ 13.) Damages sustained by Plaintiff commencing as of December 1, 2022, are estimated to be $1,842.87 per day. As of the January 11, 2023, hearing on this motion, such daily rental value damages are $131,243.04 (30 days x $1,794.75 per day, plus 42 days x $1,842.87 per day).