Judge Mark A. Young, Case 22SMCV02275 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV02275, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02275 Hearing Date: March 21, 2023 Dept: M

CASE NO.: 22SMCV02275

MOTION: Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication

HEARING DATE: 3/21/2023

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.)

EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

Analysis

Defendants Dahlia Fox and Avi Fox move the Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1170.7 and 437(c) for summary judgment or alternatively, summary adjudication, in their favor and against Plaintiff Regency Holt, LLC.

On or about November 10, 2019, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a residential lease agreement (“Lease”) for the Subject Property located at 1237 S. Holt Ave., Unit 306, Los Angeles, CA 90035 (“Property.”) (SS ¶ 1.) The rent for the first twelve months of the lease was prorated to $4,995.00 per month, although the rate was lessened initially. (SS ¶ 2.) Defendants contend that after the COVID-19 pandemic began, Plaintiff demanded that Defendants begin paying rent in the amount of $5,450.00 beginning approximately November 2020. (SS ¶ 3.) During this period, Defendants were financially impacted by COVID-19 and could no longer pay rent at Property. (SS ¶ 4.) Specifically, D. Fox lost income because she was no longer able to work as a full-time realtor due, in part, to the fact that she could no longer host open houses or provide my clients with showings. (Dahlia Fox Decl., ¶¶ 5-7.) A. Fox could no longer afford the rent because Defendants’ daughter could no longer physically go to school, so he had to stay home full-time to monitor her as a full-time caregiver. (Avi Fox Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.) Defendants proactively notified the managers of Property throughout their tenancy that they were unable to pay rent, including in September 2022. (SS ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff still served Defendants with a 3-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit on September 23, 2022. (SS, ¶ 11.) Plaintiff then served Defendants with a second notice on October 21, 2022. (SS, ¶ 12.) The notice to pay rent or quit stated that it sought $38,150.00 of rent which accrued “April 1, 2022, and Later.” (Compl., Ex. 2.) Defendants continue to reside at the Property. (SS, ¶ 13.)

Los Angeles Municipal Code section 49.99.2 states, “During the Local Emergency Period and for 12 months after its expiration, no Owner shall endeavor to evict or evict a residential tenant for non-payment of rent during the Local Emergency Period if the tenant is unable to pay rent due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic.” Defendants assert that the Local Emergency Period is still in effect. Indeed, the last published ordinances regarding the Local Emergency Period was titled SAFER LA and issued on September 28, 2022. The SAFER LA Order states, “This Order shall be in place during the local emergency period, and it may be amended or rescinded as warranted according to local public health conditions.” The Los Angeles City Council voted in October 2022, to end the emergency period on February 1, 2023. As a result, rent debt must be paid as follows: (1) rent owed from March 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021, tenants must pay by August 1, 2023; (2) rent owed from October 1, 2021, to January 31, 2023, tenants must pay by February 1, 2024.

Plaintiff cannot demand the cited rent until after the Local Emergency Period protections expire. Therefore, Defendants are protected from this unlawful detainer action. Defendants meet their initial burden. As this is an unlawful detainer action, Plaintiff may attempt to demonstrate a triable issue of material fact at the hearing. If Plaintiff fails to do so, Defendants’ motion will be GRANTED.