Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STUD15432, Date: 2024-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STUD15432    Hearing Date: September 19, 2024    Dept: 26

636 NHP, LLC v. Walker, et al.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(CCP §§ 437c, 1170.7)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Leslie Nicole Walker’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff 636 NHS, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant unlawful detainer action for possession and back rent against Defendant Leslie Nicole Walker (“Defendant”) on November 30, 2023. Defendant filed an Answer on December 12, 2023. Defendant filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on July 17, 2024. Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 25, 2024.

On July 29, 2024, the case came for trial and the Court found that possession was no longer at issue. (Minute Order, 07/29/24.) The case was then transferred to the Limited Jurisdiction Department. (Minute Order, 08/02/24.)

Discussion

Allegations in the Complaint

The Complaint alleges Defendant entered into a one-year lease agreement with Plaintiff on June 4, 2019 for the property at 636 N. Hill Pl., #A105, Los Angeles, California. (Compl., ¶¶1-2, 6.) The parties initially agreed to rent of $2,095.00 per month, which was later increased to $2,450.00 per month. (Id. at ¶6.) Defendant was served with a 30-day notice to pay rent or quit within 30 days (“the Notice”). (Id. at ¶9.) The Notice was served on October 1, 2023 and expired on November 1, 2023. (Id. at ¶¶9-10 and Exh. 2.) At the time the Notice to pay rent or quit was served, the amount of rent due was $11,676.00. (Id. at ¶12.)

Motion for Summary Judgment

A defendant seeking summary judgment must show either (1) that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established; or (2) that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Plaintiff is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until Defendant meets its initial moving burden. (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 839-840.) A motion for summary judgment in an unlawful detainer case must be granted or denied on the same basis as a motion for summary judgment in any other civil action under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, except that a separate statement need not be filed in support of or in opposition to a motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1170.7.)

Defendant’s Initial Burden of Proof

The Motion is brought on the grounds that Plaintiff cannot prevail in this action because the Notice did not provide Defendant with 30 days to cure the nonpayment. (Motion, citing Amended Answer, filed 12/19/23, ¶34.) Specifically, Defendant argues that the Notice did not comply with the U.S. Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”), which requires that landlords provide a covered tenant 30 days, not three days, to cure a breach in a non-payment of rent case.

The statute provides: “The lessor of a covered dwelling unit (1) may not require the tenant to vacate the covered dwelling unit before the date that is 30 days after the date on which the lessor provides the tenant with a notice to vacate.” (15 U.S.C., § 9058, subd. (c).) The statute does not require landlords to provide a covered tenant with 30 days to cure a breach, as Defendant argues. It only prohibits requiring a tenant to vacate the premises less than 30 days after giving the tenant the notice. Defendant cites federal rules and regulations for the proposition that the purpose of the 30-day notice requirement was to protect tenants from a lease termination or eviction action within three days. (Citing 86 Code. Fed. Reg. Part 55696; 7 Code Fed. Regs. Part 3560.) The Notice provided by Plaintiff does not go contrary to this purpose. It does not indicate that Defendant’s lease would be terminated or that eviction actions would commence less than 30 days from service of the Notice.

Defendant, therefore, has not shown that statutory language requires giving a tenant 30 days to pay rent. Nor has Defendant shown that the Notice violates the statutory language. The Notice provided by Plaintiff states: “WITHIN THREE (3) DAYS after the service of this Notice, excluding Saturdays and Sundays and other judicial holidays, you are hereby required to pay to HILLSIDE VILLA APARTMENTS, as owner/ authorized agent for the owner, the rent for the premises described above in the amount of: ELEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SEVENTY-SIX DOLLARS and 00/100 ($ 11,676.00) OR QUIT AND DELIVER UP POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS.” (Compl., Exh. 2.) Contrary to Defendant’s contention, the notice provided by Plaintiff does comport with the CARES Act. It gives Defendant three days to cure the breach by payment of rent, or 30 days to quit and deliver possession of the premises.

Finally, the cases cited by Plaintiff are not applicable here. Watson v. Vici Community Development Corp. (W.D. Okla. 2022) WL 910155, involved a case where the defendants did not dispute that failing to give the tenant 30 days’ notice prior to filing for eviction was sufficient. (Watson v. Vici Community Development Corp. (W.D. Okla. 2022) WL 910155, *10.) Smallwood v. Willow Way, LLC simply restates the language of the CARES Act: “may not require a tenant to vacate a dwelling unit located in or on the applicable property before the date that is 30 days after the date on which the borrower provides the tenant with a notice to vacate.” (Smallwood v. Willow Way, LLC (N.D. Tex. 2021) 2021 WL 2653287, at *7.)

Defendant, therefore, has not shown through undisputed facts that Plaintiff cannot prevail on its action for unpaid rent based on a non-compliant notice.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Leslie Nicole Walker’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give notice.