Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV15724, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15724    Hearing Date: April 26, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: April 26, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Summary Judgment

Moving Party: Defendants SRHT Property Management Company, Skid Row Housing Trust and Hart Limited Partnership

Responding Party: None

T/R:      DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF JUAN ASPUIRO IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been recieved.

BACKGROUND

On May 11, 2022, Plaintiffs Robert Green, et al. filed a complaint against Defendant SRHT Property Management Company, Skid Row Housing Trust, and Hart Limited Partnership, asserting causes of action for breach of the warranty of habitability, violation of Civil Code § 1942.4, and private nuisance. Tenant Plaintiffs allege their units, owned and managed by Defendants, are uninhabitable due to infestations, mold and plumbing issues.

ANALYSIS

“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.) Trial judges are required “to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (CCP § 437c(p)(2).) Once the defendant has met that burden, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Id.)  To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce “substantial responsive evidence.” (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

Defendants move for summary judgment against Defendant Juan Aispuro. On May 19, 2023, Defendant SRHT served Plaintiff Aspuiro with Requests for Admission, Set One. (Cain Decl. ¶3.) Aispuro did not serve responses and did not ask for an extension to respond. (Id. ¶ 4.) Defendant subsequently moved to deem the RFA’s admitted as to Plaintiff Aispuro. (Id.¶ 6.) This Court granted Defendant’s motion on September 21, 2023. (Id. ¶ 7.) On November 11, 2023, Defendants SRHT PMC and HART, LP served Plaintiff Aspuiro with Requests for Admissions, Set One. No responses were ever served by Plaintiff Aspuiro. Defendants subsequently moved to deem the RFA’s admitted, which was granted on January 25, 2024.

Defendants assert that no triable issues of fact remain because Aispuro has legally admitted no liability against Defendants. Plaintiff Aispuro does not oppose this motion to show a triable issue of fact.

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.