Judge: Michael Small, Case: 21STCV39039, Date: 2024-02-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV39039 Hearing Date: March 20, 2024 Dept: 57
Defendant Juan Rivera's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted with leave to amend.
Plaintiff Firestone Plaza, LLC (“Firestone”) brings this breach of contract action against its former tenants and guarantors based on two commercial leases for Unit F and Unit E of a shopping center located at 2701 Firestone Boulevard, South Gate, California (“Property”).
As relevant here, the lease for Unit F (“Unit F Lease”) was entered into between Firestone as Lessor and “Paulina Martinez dba TBD” as Lessee on March 27, 2017. (See Complaint, ¶ 6, Ex. 1, “AIR Commercial Real Estate Association Standard Industrial/Commercial Multi-Tenant Lease - Gross.”) The lease term was three years, commencing July 1, 2017 and ending June 30, 2020. (Id., ¶ 7.) Per the Guaranty of Lease for Unit F, Defendants Paulina Martinez and Juan Rivera are named as the Guarantors.
Firestone alleges in its complaint that in April 2020, “Defendants breached the Leases” by failing to pay rent and/or additional charges and that “[o]n or about October 22, 2021, Defendants abandoned the Property.” (Id., ¶¶ 12-14.) Having performed under the Leases, Firestone seeks damages against Defendants for, inter alia, the unpaid rent between April 2020 and October 2021. (Id., ¶¶ 15-16.
The primary argument in Rivera's motion for judgment on the pleadings rests on the Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles Further Amending and Restating the County of Los Angeles COVID-19 Tenant Protections Resolution (“Resolution”) . The Resolution defines March 4, 2020 through January 31, 2022 during which a commercial tenant was unable to pay rent due to COVID-19-related financial impacts as the “Protected Time Period.” (Id., IV.J.2, pp. 7-8.) Effective June 22, 2021, the Resolution prohibits a landlord of a commercial tenant with nine employees or fewer from enforcing a personal guarantee for rent incurred by the tenant during the Protected Time Period. (Id., VI.D.2, p. 16.)
Firestone does not dispute that under the Unit F Lease, Martinez was the sole owner and tenant, with no employees. (Motion, p. 6, citing RJN, Ex. 1, Ex. 1, p. 1.) Nor does Firestone dispute that it filed suit on October 22, 2021. (RJN, Ex. 1; Opposition, p. 2.) Firestone’s Complaint alleges that Rivera (and Martinez) guaranteed the Unit F Lease and that Firestone seeks unpaid rent “from April 2020 through October 2021, in the amount of $71,720.00.” (RJN, Ex. 1, ¶ 16.a.) Because Firestone seeks to enforce Rivera's guarantee of the Unit F Lease for rent incurred by Martinez and her business during the Protected Time Period, Firestone’s Complaint as to Juan is foreclosed by the Resolution prohibiting this enforcement effort. As a result, Firestone's complaint necessarily fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a breach of contract claim against Rivera.
Firestone's argument that the Resolution is inapplicable here is unavailing. So too is Firestone's argument that the Court's ruling earlier this year on Firestone's motion for summary adjudication forecloses Rivera's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The default rule is that if a motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, leave to amend the pleadings should be afforded as well. It is unclear if Firestone can amend to avoid the defect identified in Rivera's motion. Nevertheless, the Court is granting Firestone leave to amend.