Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV02834, Date: 2024-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV02834    Hearing Date: September 30, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Nancy One LLC v. Littleton, et al.

CASE NO.:                24SMCV02834

MOTION:                  Motion for Summary Judgment

HEARING DATE:   9/30/2024

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 Nanny One LLC moves for summary judgment against Defendants Brittany Littleton and Ricardo Arroyo (“Defendants”) for possession only of the Subject Premises. This unlawful detainer action concerns possession of a residential property located at 17050 W. Sunset Blvd., Apt. #D, Pacific Palisades, 90272 (“Premises”).

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.) 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. (Id.) Proving proper service on lessees of a valid three-day notice to pay or quit is essential to declaring lessor’s judgment for possession under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161. (Palm Property Investments, LLC v. Yadegar (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1419, 1425.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1161(2) applies to a residential tenant’s default on rent and requires that the three-day notice state no more than the amount of rent due, be served after the stated amount becomes due, and provide the landlord’s contact details for payment. Civil Code section 1952(b) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1174.5 permit a landlord to obtain immediate possession by unlawful detainer and leave monetary damages to subsequent litigation. (Northrop Corp. v. Chaparral Energy, Inc. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 725, 729.)  

The complaint alleges that on June 1, 2020, the Premises was rented on a fixed term tenancy to Defendants by written lease agreement (the “Lease”). Defendants continue to occupy the Premises. (Compl., ¶ 2.) The monthly rent is $6,825.00, due by the first of each month. (¶3.) Defendants are delinquent in rent of $74,875.00, for the periods of 07/01/2023 through 05/31/2024 and 10/01/2021 through 01/31/2023. (¶4.) On May 30, 2023, Plaintiff served a written notice (2023 Notice) requiring payment of the unpaid rent then due ($53,975.00) for the period of 10/01/2021 through 01/31/2023. (¶ 6, Ex. B.) On May 30, 2024, Plaintiff served written notice (“2024 Notice”) on Defendant(s) requiring the payment of the unpaid rent then due ($20,900.00) for the period of 07/01/2023 through 05/31/2024. (¶ 5, Ex. A.) Defendant(s) have failed to pay the rent demanded within the periods specified by the 2024 Notice and 2023 Notice, and Plaintiff has not been restored to possession of the Premises although more than three days have expired since service of the 2024 Notice and 2023 Notice (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and judicial holidays). (¶ 7.) The reasonable value for the use and occupancy of the Premises is $227.50 per day. (¶ 8.)

            Plaintiff meets its initial burden demonstrating that there is no dispute of material fact concerning Plaintiff’s right to possession of the Premises. On July 8, 2024, Plaintiff served Requests for Admissions to Defendants Brittany Littleton and Ricardo Arroyo. (Supp. Spinrad Decl., ¶¶ 3-6, Exs. 1-2.) Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with any responses. (Id.) Plaintiff filed Motions to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted against Defendants. The Court granted both motions. On August 27, 2024, the Court ordered Defendants to respond within 10 days with code-compliant and objection free responses, or the request for admissions would be deemed admitted. (Id.) Plaintiff shows that neither Defendant provided any response to the Requests for Admissions as of September 17, 2024. (¶ 4.) Accordingly, the admissions were deemed admitted against Defendants as of September 6, 2024. Defendants have thus admitted all the elements of unlawful detainer, including the facts of plaintiff’s ownership, that they owe the specified amounts of rent, that the notices were not defective or overstated, they received the notices and did not pay rent accordingly, that the premises was habitable and had no substantial defects, among other things. Defendants cannot dispute such admitted facts in opposition, and therefore cannot establish a dispute of material fact as to possession.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.  Judgement will be entered for Plaintiff.