Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 24STLC03319, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 24STLC03319, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STLC03319 Hearing Date: November 6, 2024 Dept: 26

Gonzalez v. Chang, et al.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Barbara Gonzalez’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary adjudication, is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE AND SERVE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS RULING.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Barbara Gonzalez aka Barbara Mitchell (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract and violation of Civil Code section 1950.5 against Defendant Ben Chang (“Defendant”) on May 8, 2024. Defendant filed an answer in propria persona on June 12, 2024.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication on August 12, 2024. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

Allegations in the Complaint

The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) breach of contract; and (2) violation of Civil Code § 1950.5, based on the following facts. Defendant is the owner of the real property located at 2620 Deodar Circle, Pasadena, California (“the Property”). (Compl., ¶2.) On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff and Richard Mitchell entered into a written residential lease with Defendant for the Property. (Compl., ¶4.) In accordance with the lease agreement, in August 2014, Plaintiff paid Defendant a security deposit in the amount of $6,000.00. (Id. at ¶5.) On December 28, 2023, Defendant gave Plaintiff a written 60 Day Notice to Quit the Property. (Id. at ¶6 and Exh. B.) Plaintiff vacated the Property and held a final walk-through with Defendant on February 11, 2024. (Id. at ¶7.) Defendant failed to comply with the 21-day deadline set forth in Civil Code section 1950.5 and (b) Section 4(b) of the Lease to withhold any amounts from the Security Deposit. (Id. at ¶7.) Defendant also failed to provide any receipts and itemizations for any and all deductions exceeding $125.00 from the Security Deposit; and failed to return any amounts from Plaintiff’s Security Deposit. (Ibid.) On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff made written demand upon Defendant to return the security deposit, but Defendant refused to respond. (Id. at ¶8.) As a result of Defendant’s breach of the lease agreement and violation of Civil Code section 1950.5, Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages of $6,000.00 and statutory damages of $12,000.00. (Id. at ¶¶11, 17-18.)

Motion for Summary Judgment / Adjudication

On a motion for summary judgment, a moving plaintiff must show that there is no defense by proving each element of every cause of action entitling the party to judgment on that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Then the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the causes of action or a defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Additionally, in ruling on the Motion, the Court must view the “evidence [citations] and such inferences [citations], in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” (Intrieri v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 72, 81 [citing Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843].)

Plaintiff’s Initial Burden of Proof

Plaintiff contends she is entitled to judgment under the terms of the parties’ lease agreement and the language of Civil Code section 1950.5, subdivision (l). An action for breach of contract must demonstrate (1) the existence of a contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance; defendant's breach; and (4) resulting damage. (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1997) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 307). Civil Code section 1950.5 provides in relevant part:

No later than 21 calendar days after the tenant has vacated the premises, but not earlier than the time that either the landlord or the tenant provides a notice to terminate the tenancy under Section 1946 or 1946.1, Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or not earlier than 60 calendar days prior to the expiration of a fixed-term lease, the landlord shall furnish the tenant, by personal delivery or by first-class mail, postage prepaid, a copy of an itemized statement indicating the basis for, and the amount of, any security received and the disposition of the security, and shall return any remaining portion of the security to the tenant. …”

(Civ. Code, § 1950.5, subd. (g)(1).) Bad faith retention of the security deposit in violation of this statute entitles the tenant to “statutory damages of up to twice the amount of the security, in addition to actual damages.” (Civ. Code, § 1950.5, subd. (l).)

Plaintiff relies on the following undisputed facts with respect to both causes of action. On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff entered into a written residential lease with Defendant for the Property. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 1; Gonzalez Decl., ¶2 and Exh. A.) Under sections 4(a) and 5 of the lease agreement, on August 28, 2014, Plaintiff paid Defendant a security deposit in the amount of $6,000.00. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 2-3; Gonzalez Decl., ¶¶3-4 and Exhs. A, C.) On December 28, 2023, Defendant gave Plaintiff a handwritten 60-Day Notice to Quit the Property. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 4; Gonzalez Decl., ¶5 and Exh. B.) Plaintiff vacated the Property on February 11, 2024. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 5; Gonzalez Decl., ¶6.) The parties held a walk-through of the Property after Plaintiff vacated. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 6; Gonzalez Decl., ¶6.) Defendant did not comply with the 21-day deadline under section 4(b) of the lease to provide an itemized statement of deductions and any documentation for any and all deductions exceeding $125.00 from the security deposit. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact No. 7; Gonzalez Decl., ¶6.) Plaintiff demanded Defendant return the deposit multiple times, but he has refused to do so. (Motion, Separate Statement, Fact Nos. 8-9; Gonzalez Decl., ¶¶7-8; Furutani Decl., ¶2 and Exh. D.)

This evidence carries Plaintiff initial burden of proof with respect to the breach of contract cause of action. Plaintiff demonstrates the existence of the lease agreement, Plaintiff’s compliance with its terms, Defendant’s breach, and resulting damages. Likewise, Plaintiff has shown that Defendant violated the statutory requirements of Civil Code section 1950.5. The burden now shifts to Defendant to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of material fact regarding breach of the lease agreement and violation of Civil Code section 1950.5. As no opposition has been filed to date, however, no such triable issues of material fact are shown to exist.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Barbara Gonzalez’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary adjudication, is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE AND SERVE A PROPOSED JUDGMENT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS RULING.

Moving party to give notice.