Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV01039, Date: 2024-05-20 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/ui/main.aspx?casetype=civil

Case Number: 23CMCV01039    Hearing Date: May 20, 2024    Dept: A

23CMCV01039 DbestProducts, Inc. v. Elite Anywhere Corp.; Robert Sabo; All Unnamed Occupants

[TENTATIVE] ORDER: GRANTING REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT (REDUCED)

      This is an unlawful detainer action based on a written, commercial lease agreement for a definite term. Defendant, Robert Sabo, signed a personal guaranty. Plaintiff served a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit. Plaintiff sues for possession, forfeiture of the lease agreement, past due rent, and holdover damages.

      The Court entered default against Elite Anywhere Corporation, a California Corporation and Robert Sabo on September 7, 2023, and issued a writ of possession on December 15, 2023, which was returned on February 9, 2024, showing that possession was returned to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff submits a supplemental declaration and accounting showing damages sustained up to the point of possession (January 17, 2024.)

      Plaintiff tacks on “holdover late fees” of $3,500.00 which is not a part of the damage claim. Damages are broken into two distinct categories, back rent and holdover damages, the latter of which is the amount of reasonable rental damages the landlord has suffered. (Superior Motels, Inc. v. Rinn Motor Hotels, Inc. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1032, 1066.) Holdover damages are calculated at $486.30 per day for 201 days as alleged in the Complaint. (Complaint, ¶ 13.)     

      The landlord of non-residential property must refund the deposit within 30 days after landlord receives possession of the premises. (Civ. Code, § 1950.7 subd. (c).) Plaintiff did not apply the security deposit of $21,291.80, claiming that it will be credited “against any post lock out damages” which is not permitted by statute. A landlord in a commercial lease may not retain the security deposit to cover damages for future rent; it is applied only against unpaid rent accrued as of the date required for return of the deposit. (250 L.L.C. v. PhotoPoint Corp. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 703, 712 [otherwise “landlords could retain security deposits well beyond the statutory deadline in every case, on the ground that the deposit ‘might’ not cover prospective damages, and could do so with relative impunity given the modest penalty for acting in bad faith. Such a result would thwart the statutory purpose of compelling the prompt refund of security deposits."].)

WORKSHEET

Attorney’s fees per local rule schedule.

Over $100,000, $2,890 plus 1% of the excess over $100,000."

(CA R LOS ANGELES SUPER CT Rule 3.214.)

Costs