Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case 21STCV47091 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV47091, Date: 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV47091 Hearing Date: August 31, 2022 Dept: 74

21STCV47091 DR. JAMES M. KANDA DDS vs YST INVESTMENT, LLC

OSC RE ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING: The court will enter judgment as follows: Does 1-50 are dismissed. The Court shall sign a judgment providing: Plaintiff Dr. James M. Kanda, DDS's Application for Default Judgment was originally submitted to this Court on July 13, 2022. Subsequent to the August 4, 2022 hearing Plaintiff Dr. James M. Kanda, DDS submits this revised [Proposed] Judgment Pursuant to CCP §585(d). Upon full consideration of the pleadings, authorities and other evidence submitted by Plaintiff Dr. James M. Kanda, DDS and for good cause appearing to grant said judgment. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: i. Plaintiff Dr. James M. Kanda DDS, as lessee, validly exercised the first Option to Extend the term of that certain AIR Commercial Real Estate Association Standard Industrial/Commercial Multi-Tenant Lease-Net dated May 14, 2012, as amended by that certain Addendum, Right of First Offer to Purchase and Option(s) to Extend dated July 1, 2012 (collectively, the "LEASE") with Mun Chun Hong, as lessor, for the property located at 3043 Foothill Boulevard #1, La Crescenta, CA 91214 (the "PROPERTY") and the LEASE duration was validly extended by 60 months, pursuant to Section 69(A)(i) of the LEASE, to the date of June 30, 2027; ii. Plaintiff Dr. James M. Kanda, DDS is awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $40,604.50. Subparts ii and iii shall be stricken from the proposed judgment.

Revised Requested Judgment: Plaintiff’s revised default judgment request seeks entry of judgment against YST Investment, LLC consisting of the following orders:

- Plaintiff Dr. James M. Kanda DDS, as lessee, validly exercised the first Option to Extend the term of that certain AIR Commercial Real Estate Association Standard Industrial/Commercial Multi-Tenant Lease-Net dated May 14, 2012, as amended by that certain Addendum, Right of First Offer to Purchase and Option(s) to Extend dated July 1, 2012 (collectively, the "LEASE") with Mun Chun Hong, as lessor, for the property located at 3043 Foothill Boulevard #1, La Crescenta, CA 91214 (the "PROPERTY") and the LEASE duration was validly extended by 60 months, pursuant to Section 69(A)(i) of the LEASE, to the date of June 30, 2027.

- The LEASE option was validly exercised by Plaintiff Dr. James M. Kanda, DDS in his lease thereby granting him an ongoing possessory right in his leased premises through the end of such option period.

- Plaintiff Dr. James M. Kanda, DDS is hereby authorized to execute and record the form of Memorandum of Lease attached hereto as Exhibit A with respect to the LEASE.

- Award the Plaintiff Dr. James M. Kanda, DDS attorney's fees in the amount of $40,604.50.

Plaintiff’s Request for Attorneys’ Fees and Declaratory Relief are Adequately Supported

The parties’ lease included an agreement not to calculate attorneys’ fees based upon any court fee schedule. (Nieves Decl. Ex. A ¶ 31.) Plaintiff provided declarations stating the number of hours spent and hourly rate for his counsel. (Nieves Decl. ¶¶ 25-27, Wolfe Decl. ¶¶ 2-4.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requested attorneys’ fees in the amount of $40,604.50 are adequately supported.

The parties’ lease also included an option whereby Plaintiff could extend the term of the lease by “2 additional 60 month period(s)” provided Plaintiff gave written notice of Plaintiff’s election “at least 3 but not more than 9 months prior to the date that the option period would commence.” (Nieves Decl. Ex. A Option(s) to Extend Standard Lease Addendum.) The original term of the lease was 10 years and set to terminate on June 30, 2022. Plaintiff provides evidence that Plaintiff notified Defendant in writing of Plaintiff’s intent to exercise its option less than 9 months but more than 3 months prior to the date the option period would commence. (Nieves Decl. ¶¶ 17-19, Ex. H-I.) Accordingly, Plaintiff has demonstrated the right to judicial declaration that Plaintiff validly exercised the option to extend the lease by 60 months.

The Court’s Prior Order

On August 4, 2022, the Court entered an order advising Plaintiff of the following revisions and additional information required:

Plaintiff should provide a revised proposed judgment providing the following: - Plaintiff Dr. James M. Kanda DDS validly exercised the first Option to Extend the A.I.R. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION STANDARD INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL MULTI-TENANT LEASE-NET (the “LEASE”) with Mun Chun Hong dated May 14, 2012 for the property located at 3043 Foothill Boulevard #1, La Crescenta, CA 91214, now owned by Defendant YST Investment, LLC, (the “PROPERTY”), and the lease duration is validly extended by 60 months.

. . .

Plaintiff must provide a declaration identifying the additional costs claimed.

Plaintiff must also dismiss Does 1-50.

(Min. Order dated August 4, 2022.)

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Documents

On August 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a supplemental request for entry of default judgment.

Plaintiff removed the request for costs all together and therefore the costs are no longer at issue.

Plaintiff did not file a request to dismiss Does 1-50 as instructed.

Plaintiff also did not fully revise the judgment consistent with the Court’s order. Plaintiff’s revised proposed judgment contains four subparts.

The first subpart is substantially identical to the Court’s judgment language issued in the August 4, 2022 order. The fourth subpart properly includes the attorneys’ fees to be awarded.

The second subpart substantially retains language the Court indicated Plaintiff should remove: “The LEASE option was validly exercised by Plaintiff Dr. James M. Kanda, DDS in his lease thereby granting him an ongoing possessory right in his leased premises through the end of such option period.” The first subpart of the judgment states the option was validly exercised, rendering this second subpart redundant. Additionally, there is no practical reason to include a broad statement that Plaintiff has “an ongoing possessory right in his leased premises through the end of such option period.” The legal effect of the option extension need not be separately stated and such language may be misconstrued to prevent the future use of otherwise lawful means to end Plaintiff’s possessory right in the premises during the lease term.

Plaintiff’s revised judgment includes a third subpart that was not included in the original proposed judgment and provides: “Plaintiff Dr. James M. Kanda, DDS is hereby authorized to execute and record the form of Memorandum of Lease attached hereto as Exhibit A with respect to the LEASE.” Plaintiff does not provide any explanation as to why this addition was made and does not provide any authority for this request. The memorandum of lease is not referenced in either declaration of counsel or the application for default judgment. The complaint does not request such relief. Additionally, it does not appear the lease contains a clause, which the parties could have negotiated, permitting the recordation of the lease or a memorandum thereof. The Court finds Plaintiff has not demonstrated a basis for this additional relief.