Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 23STCV04585, Date: 2024-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04585    Hearing Date: August 29, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Hearing date:              August 29, 2024

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Christopher Birt

Responding Party:       None

Motion for Summary Judgment or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication

The Court considered the moving papers.

            The Court GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Christopher Birt.  Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is rendered moot.

Background

            On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff Christopher Birt (“Plaintiff” or “Birt”) filed an action for (1) violation of Los Angeles Municipal Code sections 151.04 and 151.10 and (2) declaratory relief against Defendants Open Sky Real Estate, LLC (“Open Sky”) and Does  through 10.  During the relevant time period, Plaintiff was a tenant in a rental unit located at 2129 ½ S. Beverly Glen Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90025, property owned by Open Sky.  (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12.)  Plaintiff alleges that during his tenancy, Defendants or their agents “intentionally demanded, accepted, or retained payments of rent in excess of the maximum rent or maximum adjusted rent permitted at that time” in violation of the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance.  (Ibid. at ¶ 14.)

            On March 24, 2023, Defendant filed an Answer and on April 3, 2023, Defendant filed a Verified Amended Answer.

            On June 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed Notice of Related Case, listing Case No. 22SMUD01405.

            On August 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication.  No opposition has been filed.

Request for Judicial Notice

            Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice of the following exhibits is GRANTED.

1)      Exhibit A – Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Christopher Birt on December 19, 2022 in Open Sky Real Estate v. Birt, LASC Case No. 22SMUD01405;

2)      Exhibit B - Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Open Sky Real Estate LLC on January 5, 2023 in Open Sky Real Estate v. Birt, LASC Case No. 22SMUD01405;

3)      Exhibit C - Evidence in Support of Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Open Sky Real Estate LLC on January 5, 2023 in Open Sky Real Estate v. Birt, LASC Case No. 22SMUD01405;

4)      Exhibit D – Minute Order, dated January 9, 2023, granting Birt’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Open Sky Real Estate v. Birt, LASC Case No. 22SMUD01405;

5)      Exhibit E - Complaint filed by Open Sky Real Estate LLC against Christopher Birt on September 26, 2022 in Open Sky Real Estate v. Birt, LASC Case No. 22SMUD01405

Legal Standard

A party seeking summary judgment has the burden of producing evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle him/her to judgment as a matter of law.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)  The moving party must make an affirmative showing that he/she is entitled to judgment irrespective of whether or not the opposing party files an opposition.  (Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733, 742-743.)  Thus, “the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.”  (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519 (citing Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)

When a plaintiff seeks summary judgment, he/she must produce admissible evidence on each element of each cause of action on which judgment is sought.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)  When a defendant seeks summary judgment, he/she has the “burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.”  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)

The opposing party on a motion for summary judgment is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until the moving party meets his or her initial movant’s burden.  (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.)  Once the initial movant’s burden is met, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show, with admissible evidence, that there is a triable issue requiring the weighing procedures of trial.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p).)  The opposing party may not simply rely on his/her allegations to show a triable issue but must present evidentiary facts that are substantial in nature and rise beyond mere speculation.  (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 162.)  Summary judgment must be granted “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.)

Discussion

            Plaintiff moves for summary judgment of the Complaint or in the alternative, summary adjudication of the first cause of action for violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code sections 151.04 and 151.10 and second cause of action for declaratory relief.  (Mot. p. 2.)

            Defendant is the owner of the property located at 2129 ½ Beverly Glen Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90025, (“Property”) which is subject to the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (“LARSO”).  (RJN, Ex. E – Landlord’s Compl. ¶¶ 3-4, 16.)  During the relevant time period, Plaintiff was a tenant at the Property.  (Ibid. at ¶ 6.)  In a separate unlawful detainer action between the parties, Defendant claimed that Plaintiff owed rent, calculated at a rate of $1,308 per month.  (Ibid. at ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff asserts that, on the following dates, Defendant served Plaintiff with notices increasing the rent as follows:

1)      Around July 1, 2014, and effective October 1, 2014, rent increased to $1,118.48;

2)      Around July 1, 2015, and effective September 1, 2015, rent increased to $1,151.50;

3)      Around July 1, 2016, and effective September 1, 2016, rent increased to $1,186.04;

4)      Around April 1, 2017, and effective September 1, 2017, rent increased to $1,221.00;

5)      Around January 1, 2018, and effective September 1, 2018, rent increased to $1,258.00;

6)      Around July 1, 2019, and effective September 1, 2019, rent increased to $1,308.00.

(Woocher Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A at pp. 1-6.)

            Plaintiff Birt made the following rental payments:

1)      From October 2014 to August 2015, $1,118.48 per month;

2)      From September 2015 to August 2016, $1,151.50 per month;

3)      From September 2016 to August 2017, $1,186.04 per month;

4)      From September 2017 to August 2018, $1,221 per month;

5)      From September 2018 to August 2019, $1,258 per month;

6)      From September 2019 to at least March 2022, $1,308 per month.

(Birt Decl. ¶¶ 3-8.)

Plaintiff argues that the September 1, 2015, rent increase was illegal, along with all subsequent rent increases.  Thus, the maximum rent increase should have been to $1,118.48 and any payment above that amount constitutes over-payment.  Plaintiff calculates the difference between the rent paid by Plaintiff for each period and the maximum rent legally permitted.  The difference is as follows:

1)      $33.02 per month for the period of September 2015 to August 2016, for a total of $396.24;

2)      $67.56 per month for the period of September 2016 to August 2017, for a total of $810.72;

3)      $102.52 per month for the period of September 2017 to August 2018, for a total of $1,230.24;

4)      $139.52 per month for the period of September 2018 to August 2019, for a total of $1,674.24;

5)      $189.52 per month for the period of September 2019 to March 2022, for a total of $5,875.12;

(Woocher Decl. ¶¶ 4-8.)  Accordingly, the total amount of overpayment adds up to $9,986.56.  (Ibid. at ¶ 9.)  At no point, did Defendant return or credit Plaintiff with any funds for the past over-payment of rent.  (Birt Decl. ¶ 9.) 

A.     Violation of LAMC

Pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code (“LAMC”) section 151.04(A), “[i]t shall be unlawful for any landlord to demand, accept or retain more than the maximum adjusted rent permitted pursuant to this chapter or regulation or orders adopted pursuant to this chapter.”

Furthermore, “[a]ny person who demands, accepts or retains any payment of rent in excess of the maximum rent or maximum adjusted rent in violation of the provisions of this chapter, or any regulations or orders promulgated hereunder, shall be liable in a civil action to the person from whom such payment is demanded, accepted or retained for damages of three times the amount by which the payment or payments demanded, accepted or retained exceed the maximum rent or maximum adjusted rent which could be lawfully demanded, accepted or retained together with reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as determined by the court.”  (LAMC § 151.10(A).)

According to LAMC section 151.06(D), a landlord may increase rent for a rental unit in an amount based on the Consumer Price Index if the unit has not had a rent increase for 12 consecutive months or more.

            Plaintiff argues that in the unlawful detainer action, Open Sky Real Estate v. Christopher Birt, LASC No. 22SMUD01405, the Court already granted Birt’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that the September 2015 rent increase was illegal and Birt overpaid rent in the amount of $9,986.56 between September 2015 and March 2022.  (Mot. p. 7; RJN, Exs. A-E.)  Pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion, Open Sky may not re-litigate these issues.  (Mot. pp. 7-8.)  Here, the issue that the 2015 rent increase was illegal is identical to that of the unlawful detainer action.  The issue was actually litigated and decided through the summary judgment motion and the decision was final and on the merits, without any appeals.  The action also involved the same exact parties.  There is no reason to find that the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel would be unfair.

            Moreover, Plaintiff argues that based on the Court’s ruling in the unlawful detainer action, it has been established that Defendant violated LAMC section 151.06(D) and illegally increased rent in 2015 by increasing it twice within a 11-month period.  (Mot. p. 9.)  Since the rent should have never been increased beyond $1,118.48 per month, Plaintiff has overpaid Defendant in the amount of $9,986.56 for the period of September 2015 through March 2022.  (Ibid.)  Based on LAMC section 151.10(A), Plaintiff Birt seeks treble damages in the amount of $29,959.68.  (Ibid. at p. 10.)

            On January 9, 2023, the Court in the unlawful detainer action, Case No. 22SMUD01405, found that “the July 01, 2015 Notice of Rent Increase was an 11-month notice, instead of a 12 month Notice, as required by the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance.”  (LASC No. 22SMUD01405, 1-9-23 Minute Order.)  On this basis, the Court granted Christopher Birt’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Open Sky’s Complaint for the unlawful detainer action against him.  (Ibid.)  Open Sky had also sought damages in the form of unpaid rent based on a calculation of rent following the July 2015, July 2016, April 2017, January 2018, and July 2019, rent increases.  (Ibid.)

            Based on the evidence presented, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met his burden of demonstrating that Defendant violated LAMC sections 151.04(A) and 151.06(D) by unlawfully increasing rent for a unit for a second time in 12 months and retaining more than the maximum amount of rent permitted.  Plaintiff has also demonstrated that as a result of the violation, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for three times the amount of damages, pursuant to LAMC section 151.10(A).  No opposition has been filed by Defendant to show that a triable issue of material fact exists regarding its violations.

B.     Declaratory Relief

According to Code of Civil Procedure section 1060:

Any person interested under a written instrument, excluding a will or a trust, or under a contract, or who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another…may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action or cross-complaint in the superior court for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises, including a determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or contract.  He or she may ask for a declaration of rights or duties, either alone or with other relief; and the court may make a binding declaration of these rights or duties, whether or not further relief is or could be claimed at the time. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect, and the declaration shall have the force of a final judgment.  The declaration may be had before there has been any breach of the obligation in respect to which said declaration is sought.

Thus, action for declaratory relief under section 1060 requires two things: “(1) a proper subject of declaratory relief and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the rights or obligations of a party. [Citation.]”  (Lee v. Silveira (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 527, 546; Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 405, 410.)  The requirement that an “actual controversy” exists “concerns the existence of present controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties pursuant to contract (Code Civ. Proc. § 1060), statute, or order,” instead of a controversy that is “conjectural, anticipated to occur in the future, or an attempt to obtain an advisory opinion from the court.”  (Brownfield, 208 Cal.App.3d at 410.)  “One test of the right to institute proceedings for declaratory judgment is the necessity of present adjudication as a guide for plaintiff's future conduct in order to preserve his legal rights.”  (Osseous Technologies of America, Inc. v. DiscoveryOrtho Partners, LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 357, 364-365.)  In Osseous, the Court notes that “when there is accrued cause of action for an actual breach of contract or other wrongful act,” the court may exercise its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure § 1061 to deny declaratory relief.”  (Osseous, 191 Cal.App.4th at 366.)  Code of Civil Procedure § 1061 states that “[t]he court may refuse to exercise the power granted by this chapter in any case where its declaration or determination is not necessary or proper at the time under all the circumstances.”  The Court in Osseous found that the demurrer was properly sustained because there were “no allegations of an ongoing contractual relationship” between the parties and “[t]he future impact of any declaratory relief on the parties’ behavior is speculative.”  (Osseous, 191 Cal.App.4th at 376-77.)

            Plaintiff argues that it has already been determined in the unlawful detainer action that the rent should have never been increased beyond $1,118.48 per month.  (Mot. p. 11.)  Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to a judicial declaration that Plaintiff owed rent in the amount of $1,118.48 per month and overpaid rent in the amount of $9,986.56 for the period of September 2015 to March 2022.  (Ibid.)

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden in showing a proper subject of declaratory relief and that an actual controversy exists regarding its rights and obligations as a tenant.  Defendant has not opposed the Motion to show that a triable issue of material fact exists.

Given that Plaintiff has met his burden in showing that a no triable issue of material fact exists as to the first and second causes of action asserted in the Complaint, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

            It is so ordered.

Dated: August 29, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court