Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMUD00598, Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 22CMUD00598 Hearing Date: August 22, 2022 Dept: A
22CMUD00598
Victor Saucedo v. Jose DeJesus Orozco, Yuribeth Chavez
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER TAKING OFF CALENDAR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED
The unlawful detainer complaint
field on June 8, 2022, alleges that Plaintiff agreed to rent the residential
real property at issue to Defendants for a fixed term. Plaintiff served
Defendants with a three-day and a 15-day notice to pay rent or quit. Defendants
did not comply with either notice.
Defendants’ motion, filed on
August 2, 2022, argues that it is entitled to judgment in their favor because
Plaintiff unlawfully increased the rent during the “Protected Period”
established by the County of Los Angeles COVID-19 Tenant Protections Resolution
(“Resolution”). Rent increases were prohibited since March 4, 2020. Plaintiff
unlawfully increased the rent to $1,000 in July of 2020. Since the notices
overstate the rent due, they cannot a support an unlawful detainer action. The Resolution
applies because the residence is located in an unincorporated area of Los
Angeles County. Motion, Ex. A.
Defendants served the motion on
Plaintiff on August 2, 2022, however, the court’s file does not reflect that
Plaintiff filed an opposition.
In the context of an unlawful
detainer action, a motion for summary judgment may be made at any time after
the answer is filed upon giving five days’ notice. The motion shall be granted
or denied on the same basis as a motion under Code Civ. Proc., § 437c. Code
Civ. Proc., § 1170.7.
Summary judgment is proper “if all
the papers submitted 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.” Code Civ. Proc. §437c subd. (c).
In pertinent part, a party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more
claims for damage if that party contends that there is no merit to the claim as
specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code governing imposition of punitive
damages. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it
completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for
damages, or an issue of duty.” Code Civ. Proc., § 437c subd. (c).
Where a defendant seeks summary
judgment or adjudication, defendant must show that either “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 that cause of action.” Id. at §437c(o)(2). Once the
defendant meets this 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 defense thereto.” Id.
Until the moving defendant has
discharged its burden of proof, the opposing plaintiff has no burden to come
forward with any evidence. Once the moving party has discharged its burden as
to a particular claim, however, the plaintiff may defeat the motion by
producing evidence showing that a triable issue of one or more material facts
exists as to that cause of action. Code
Civ. Proc., §437c(p)(2).
The court applies the three-step
analysis to motions for summary judgment or adjudication: (1) identify the
issues framed by the pleading, (2) determine whether the moving party
established facts which negate the opponents’ claim, (3) if a defendant meets
its threshold burden of persuasion and the burden shifts, determine whether the
opposing party has controverted those facts with admissible evidence. Torres v. Reardon (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 831, 836.
The complaint
reflects that on January 1, 2017, Plaintiff leased the residence to Defendants
for $900 per month for a fixed term. Complaint, ¶ 6.a. The complaint alleges
Plaintiff increased the rent to $1,000 per month beginning July 2020.
Complaint, ¶ 6.d. Plaintiff served a 15-day notice to pay rent or quit for past
due rent of $6,000 for the months of April 2021 through September 30, 2021
($1,000 per month) or quit. Plaintiff also served Defendants with a three-day
notice to pay rent or quit for rent due of $6,000 for the months of October 20,
2021 through March 31, 2021 (at $1,000 per month) or quit. Therefore, Plaintiff alleges past rent due of
$12,000.
Plaintiff was
prohibited from increasing the rent in July of 2020 to $1,000. At the time, the
County of Los Angeles COVID-19 Tenant Protections Resolution (“Resolution”), effective
January 25, 2022, stated that on March 31, 2020, the Board amended the
Resolution to include a ban on rent increases in the unincorporated County as
permitted by law. Resolution, page 2, paragraph 2. The Board later extended the protections
period through July 31, 2020. Id. page 3, paragraph 5. The Board
expressly prohibited rent increases for residential tenants in the
unincorporated County during the protections period. Id., page 17, subd.
VII. The protection against rent increases is an affirmative defense for a
tenant in an unlawful detainer action. Id., page 20 subd. C. The
premises are located in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County. Motion,
Ex. 1.
A three-day
notice must contain the amount of rent due. If the notice demands rent more
than the amount due, the requirement is not satisfied. Bevill v. Zoura (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 694, 697. A notice to pay rent or quit is valid and enforceable only
if the lessor strictly complies with the specifically described notice
conditions. Kwok v. Bergren (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 596, 600.
As Defendants
have established a complete defense, the Motion for Summary Judgment is
GRANTED, and the action is dismissed. Defendant, Yuribeth Chafez’s, Motion to
Deem Matters Admitted and for Monetary Sanctions is taken off calendar as the
court no longer has jurisdiction to grant relief. Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills
(2003) 115 Cal. App. 4th 1004, 1007-1008. [“A dismissal terminates an action.
(See id., § 581.) A superior court thereafter has no subject matter
jurisdiction to grant relief other than costs and fees as appropriate
[citations omitted]. A court may also entertain a motion to vacate on grounds
of mistake, excusable neglect and so forth (Code Civ. Proc., § 473).”].