Judge Michael E. Whitaker, Case Number: 24SMCV05950, Date: 2025-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV05950, Date: 2025-03-18 Tentative Ruling

On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff RAR2-Villa Marina Center CA, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the verified complaint for unlawful detainer against Defendant Spring Cleaners MDR Inc.(“Defendant”). Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of the issue of possession.

Defendant has filed a “Notice of Response to Motion” in which Defendant indicates it “is currently attempting to informally resolve the dispute with Moving Party and paying the sum demanded in the pending Motion detailed as: $81,651.12. (See Motoin [sic] pg. 12, line 3.) Defendant reserves the right to raise any rights or defenses it possesses.” Defendant does not otherwise oppose the motion.

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.] There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” (Ibid.)

“On a summary judgment motion, the court must therefore consider what inferences favoring the opposing party a factfinder could reasonably draw from the evidence. While viewing the evidence in this manner, the court must bear in mind that its primary function is to identify issues rather than to determine issues. Only when the inferences are indisputable may the court decide the issues as a matter of law. If the evidence is in conflict, the factual issues must be resolved by trial.” (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 839 [cleaned up].) Further, “the trial court may not weigh the evidence in the manner of a factfinder to determine whose version is more likely true. Nor may the trial court grant summary judgment based on the court's evaluation of credibility.” (Id. at p. 840 [cleaned up]; see also Weiss v. People ex rel. Department of Transportation (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864 [“Courts deciding motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not weigh the evidence but must instead view it in the light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party”].)

“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.” (KB Salt Lake III, LLC v. Fitness Internat., LLC (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1045.)

In support of the motion, Plaintiff advances the Declaration of Neelam Mian, which provides:

1. I am a full-time employee of JLL, the property manager for RAR-2 Villa Marina Center CA, LLC ("Plaintiff”). Plaintiff owns the subject Development in Marina del Rey, California known as Villa Marina Center. I am the General Manager of the Villa Marina Center. In this capacity, I am authorized by Plaintiff to manage landlord - tenant relations, to account for rent payments and to coordinate leasing of vacant space. I maintain custody of the book accounts and leases at the development on behalf of Plaintiff in the course of regularly conducted business activity. I am the person most knowledgeable on behalf of Plaintiff generally on the subject of the leases and rent payments at the development. As such, I make this declaration from personal knowledge. If called as a witness, I could testify to the truth of the following facts.

2. On or about April 27, 2020, Plaintiff conveyed to Spring Cleaners Inc. ("Spring") a multi-year leasehold interest ("Lease") in certain retail space (the "Premises") in which Spring conducted a dry cleaners business. [Mian Dec., ¶ 2, Ex. "A."] The Premises is known as Villa Marina Center, 13175 Mindanao Way, Unit 205-08, Marina del Rey, California 90292. A true and correct copy of the Lease is attached hereto marked as Exhibit "A."

3. On or about May 12, 2023, Spring assigned its interest in the Lease to defendant Spring Cleaners MDR, Inc. ("Tenant"). A true and correct copy of the Assignment is attached as Exhibit "B."

5. Rent is unpaid. At the time Plaintiff served Tenant with a statutory Notice to Pay Rent or Quit, the sum of $58,835.12 was due, owing and unpaid over the prior one year. On November 7, 2024, Tenant made a partial payment of $7,500, which Plaintiff deposited under the rights reserved by CCP § 1161.1.

6. A true and correct copy of an accounting ledger ("Ledger") for the amount of Rent owing through November, 2024 is attached hereto marked as Exhibit "E." The data on the Ledger is maintained on a computer database and within a software program customized for commercial lease accounting. As each new tenancy is created at the development, a new digital file is created in the software. The initial data input includes, for example, the recurring charges such as rent. As for the payment side of the accounting, payments typically come in the form of written checks and are received by JLL. At that stage, data entries occur, usually that day or the next, by an accounting staff, to credit the tenant with the payment made. These data entries are also made or compiled by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those acts, events and conditions. The staff’s tasks ordinarily entails making these entries. Plaintiff performs regular maintenance on its computers to insure the trustworthiness and security of the data in the computer. Plaintiff can access and reproduce a paper print-out from the data stored in Plaintiffs digital software. The data reflected on the attached Ledger is trustworthy and is a true and correct reproduction of the data on Plaintiffs software program. The data, and the printout Ledger, are kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity of Plaintiff which, as a regular practice, makes and maintains records such as those attached as Exhibit "E." Plaintiff relies on Exhibit "E" as a business record that accurately summarizes the book account reconciliation of the rental 4 payments made or not made by Tenant through November, 2024.

7. Tenant has not vacated the Premises. I have been employed in the commercial real estate industry for over 25 years. I am familiar with the Development and the market rates for space within the development. The fair rental value for the subject Premises is at least $248 per day.

(Mian Decl. ¶¶ 1-7.) Plaintiff also offers the attorney Declaration of John P. Byrne, which provides:

2. I drafted the November 6, 2024 Notice to Pay Rent or Quit ("Notice to Pay Rent or Quit") and arranged for it to be served. A true and correct copy of the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit is attached hereto marked as Exhibit "C." Plaintiff served the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit by hand delivery to an adult manager at the Premises and by overnight mail on. True and correct copies of the Proofs of Service of the Notice to Pay Rent or Quit are attached hereto marked as part of Exhibit "D."

3. Attached hereto marked as Exhibit "F" is a true and correct copy of Tenant's Answer to Complaint for Unlawful Detainer.

The lease agreement and ledgers provided demonstrate that the monthly rent and amounts owing are roughly the same as, but slightly higher than the amount stated in the Mian Declaration.

Notwithstanding, Plaintiff has met its prima facie burdens of production and persuasion to demonstrate Defendant is (1) in possession of the premises; (2) without permission; (3) in default for nonpayment of rent; (4) was properly served with a 3-day Notice to Pay or Quit on November 6, 2024; and (5) although Defendant responded to the 3-day Notice by paying $7,500 toward the outstanding debt, a large balance remains owing and as such the default continues after the three-day notice period has elapsed.

Plaintiff requests $81,651.12, calculated as the $58,835.12 that was due and owing as of November 6, 2024, when Defendant was given the 3-Day Notice to Pay or Quit, plus $248 daily interest for the 92 days[1] from November 15, 2024 up to and including February 18, 2025, the day the motion was filed.

But Plaintiff’s math does not appear to account for the $7,500 Defendant paid on November 7, after Plaintiff served Defendant with the 3-Day Notice. Thus, the Court calculates the damages as follows.

In addition to the $58,835.12 that was due and owing as of November 6, minus the $7,500 Defendant subsequently paid, daily damages in the amount of $248 per day for the 132 days from November 7, 2024 up to and including the March 18, 2025 hearing date on this motion is an additional $32,736. Thus, the outstanding rent owed is $58,835.12 - $7,500 + $32,736 = $84,071.12.

Defendant does not present any evidence in opposition to create a disputed issues of material fact. In fact, Defendant’s “Response” appears to concede that the requested $81,651.12 remains due and owing.

Therefore, having found Plaintiff has met its initial burdens of production and persuasion with respect to each of the elements of unlawful detainer, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. However, the Court corrects Plaintiff’s calculations and finds Plaintiff is entitled to past due rent in the amount of $51,335.12,[2] plus holdover damages in the amount of $248 per day from November 7, 2024, which the Court calculates as equaling a total of $84,071.12 as of the date of this hearing, plus costs and attorneys’ fees, as appropriate to be determined subsequently.

Further, Plaintiff shall lodge for the Court’s consideration a proposed Order and a proposed Judgment in conformity with the Court’s ruling on or before March 25, 2025.

Further, on the Court’s own motion, the Court vacates the Case Management Conference scheduled on April 9, 2025 as moot, and sets an Order to Show Cause re Entry of Judgment on April 28, 2025 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 207. If the Court enters the Judgment before April 28, no appearance will be necessary at the Order to Show Cause hearing.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

[1] The Court notes that there are actually 96 days from November 15, 2024 up to and including February 18, 2025.

[2] $58,835.12 stated in the 3-Day Notice – Defendant’s $7,500 payment on November 7, 2024 = $51,335.12.

DEPARTMENT	207
HEARING DATE	March 18, 2025
CASE NUMBER	24SMCV05950
MOTION	Motion for Summary Judgment
MOVING PARTY	Plaintiff RAR2-Villa Marina Center CA, LLC
OPPOSING PARTY	Defendant Spring Cleaners MDR Inc.