Judge: Rafael A. Ongkeko, Case: 22STUD01804, Date: 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling
Note:
The court's tentative rulings, as posted, will not have the same formatting "look" as the court's original Word version.
A pdf version of the latter will be available in court to those appearing in person or by email upon request made to the clerk before the hearing for those appearing remotely.
Dept. D contact information:
Email: samdeptd@lacourt.org.
Phone: (310) 255-2483
Case Number: 22STUD01804 Hearing Date: February 24, 2023 Dept: D
2/24/23
Dept. D
Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding
Los Angeles Marmion Partners LP v. Maurice Joe Sandoval, et al.
(22STUD01804)
Defendant’s motion for JNOV/New Trial
Tentative ruling: None at this time. The court will hear argument and take the matter
under submission.
Background:
After
one day of testimony on 11/3/22 and approximately two and one-half hours of
deliberation, on 11/4/22, the jury rendered its special verdict in favor of
Plaintiff in this unlawful detainer action.
On 12/21/22, after much delay on Plaintiff’s part in preparing the
proposed judgments, the court entered judgment on the special verdict. On 12/27/22, the clerk served notice of entry
of judgment. Before the court is
Defendant’s JNOV/New Trial motion. There
is no issue regarding the timeliness of the motion.
The jury’s special verdict, as polled:
1.
Did the 90-DAY NOTICE TO TERMINATE
TENANCY state specific grounds for termination?
Yes (12-0) _____ No_____
If your answer is “yes,” go on to
question 2. If your answer is “no,” answer no further questions, have the
presiding juror date and sign this form, and inform the Court that you have
reached a verdict.
2.
Did the 90-DAY NOTICE TO TERMINATE
TENANCY inform MAURICE JOE SANDOVAL of his right to reply as he may wish?
Yes (11-1) _____ No_____
If your answer is “yes,” go on to
question 3. If your answer is “no,” answer no further questions, have the
presiding juror date and sign this form, and inform the Court that you have
reached a verdict.
3.
Did the 90-DAY NOTICE TO TERMINATE
TENANCY inform MAURICE JOE SANDOVAL of his right to examine documents from the
Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles directly relevant to the
termination of the tenancy?
Yes (10-2) _____ No_____
If your answer is “yes,” go on to
question 4. If your answer is “no,” answer no further questions, have the
presiding juror date and sign this form, and inform the Court that you have
reached a verdict.
4.
Did MAURICE JOE SANDOVAL fail to allow
inspection of the premises on September 10, 2021?
Yes (10-2) _____ No_____
Go on to question 5.
5.
Did MAURICE JOE SANDOVAL fail to allow
inspection of the premises on September 30, 2021?
Yes _____ No
(10-2)_____
Go on to question 6.
6.
Did MAURICE JOE SANDOVAL’s denials of
entry, if any, result in his use of the premises for an illegal purpose?
Yes (10-2) _____ No_____
Go on to question 7.
7.
Did MAURICE JOE SANDOVAL’s loss of
section 8 benefits result in his use of the premises for an illegal purpose?
Yes (10-2) _____ No_____
Go on to question 8.
8.
Does the illegal purpose that MAURICE
JOE SANDOVAL is using the premises for, if any, amount to material violations
justifying forfeiture of the lease?
Yes (10-2) _____ No_____
The
evidence at trial showed the following:
Plaintiff is a for-profit affordable housing “Tax Credit Program”
landlord whose building in this case (Grant Deed, Trial Exhibit 1) houses
mostly Section 8-subsidized tenants, including Veterans Association Supportive
Housing (”VASH”) recipients, of which Defendant Maurice Sandoval was one. Sandoval signed a lease in February, 2017 to
rent 3500 Marmion Way #207, Los Angeles, CA.
(Only odd-numbered pages of the lease were offered; see Trial Exhibit
2.) The four-story building provides supportive
services for veterans. He qualified
because he was a formerly homeless veteran and was issued a VASH “Section 8”
voucher subsidy by the city of L.A.’s housing agency, HACLA. The voucher paid Section 8/VASH landlords at
least 2/3 of the recipient’s monthly rent.
Defendant’s daughter, Laura Sandoval, was a co-signatory on Defendant’s
lease and occupied the sole bedroom on the premises. Defendant slept in the living room.
HACLA
and Plaintiff had a separate agreement which mirrored Defendant’s obligations
to HACLA, acknowledging various requirements for Section 8/VASH tenancies, two
of which were (1) annual inspections of the rented premises and (2) annual
income eligibility certifications. Based
on this agreement, Plaintiff could be in violation and lose his housing
assistance payments if later found to be ineligible. These requirements were also acknowledged as
material parts of Defendant’s lease with
Plaintiff. In other words, if Defendant
wanted to keep his Section 8/VASH voucher and payments made to the landlord on
his behalf, he was required to allow HACLA to inspect his unit at least
annually, and to comply with HACLA’s income eligibility recertifications. Eventually, as the evidence showed, Defendant
was unable or unwilling to comply with either one, leading to decisions HACLA
made to terminate Defendant’s VASH payments.
(Trial Exhibits 3, 10, 11, 51, 52)
HACLA actions. Income certification
issue. As of 9/3/21 HACLA had
already sent two letters to Defendant regarding his income certification. The
last one, on 9/3/21, was a “final notice,” giving Defendant 14 more days to
provide income review documentation.
(Trial Exhibits 11 and 51)
Another email was dated 9/13/21 on the same subject. (Trial Ex. 52) In a letter dated 9/22/21 and entitled “SECTION
8 VOUCHER PROGRAM NOTICE OF INTENDED ACTION AND RIGHT TO HEARING”
(emphasis in orig.), HACLA gave Defendant another 30 days, this time until
10/22/21, before they would terminate his payments and cancel his voucher. This letter (Tr. Ex. 11 and 51) emphasized
his request for a hearing must be made within that 30-day period. When
Defendant never asked for one, HACLA
terminated his Section 8 subsidy to take effect at the latest, as of November
1, 2021.
Annual inspection issue. Plaintiff’s senior
regional property manager, Kelly Tesso, confirmed visits she had with Defendant
on 9/1/21 and 10/21/21. Her first visit
was to prepare for HACLA’s upcoming inspection on 9/10/21. On that visit, Defendant’s daughter refused
access. HACLA’s inspector was unable to
conduct the inspection on 9/10/21 explaining in its letter of 9/13/212 that
“access was not provided.” The evidence
showed that Defendant’s daughter would not allow access to her bedroom. HACLA rescheduled a ‘second and final inspection’
for 9/30/21. (Trial Ex. 10) Although
there was no evidence that HACLA followed up with the 9/30/21 inspection or any
inspection thereafter, Tasso testified that in a housing retention meeting on
10/21/21, Defendant said he could not force his daughter to give access and
admitted failing the required inspection.
Eventually, on 10/27/21, HACLA wrote Plaintiff notifying it of the
“incomplete inspection” due to failure to allow access. (Tr. Exs. 11 and 51) This letter (which is not in evidence, but referred
to in the Notice) “warned that the matter had been referred to Advisor
Elizabeth Ortiz for termination of benefits.” (Tr. Ex. 3, p.2.) HACLA’s actions
were memorialized in letters dated 11/23/21 confirming Defendant did not ask
for a hearing and confirming that HACLA stopped making Section 8 payments to
Plaintiff on Defendant’s behalf. (Id.)
Plaintiff’s actions. On 1/11/22 Plaintiff
issued a 90-day Termination Notice (Trial Exhibit 3) setting forth what it
called the Defendant’s “program violations,” which “included failed access to
[Defendant’s] unit for annual inspection.”
The Notice was in part a copy-and-paste of three HACLA notification
letters mentioned earlier. The Notice
confirmed that Defendant “did not ask for a hearing to try to keep [his]
Section 8 program when [he] was offered to do so.” (Id.)
Although the legal sufficiency of the Notice is in dispute, it led to
the instant unlawful detainer action against Defendant. The complaint was filed on April 25, 2022.
Defendant’s evidence. Defendant said HACLA
never came back for the reinspection scheduled on 9/30/21 nor did it ever
attempt to gain access thereafter in
order to inspect his daughter’s bedroom.
He did concede difficulties related to getting her cooperation. At trial, Defendant, who has lived in his
current apartment now for six years, told the jury that he “most definitely”
prefers to return to Ventura County (Oxnard) where he’s from and where he feels
he can use his two-bedroom voucher to live in a “brand new” VA facility with
his daughter who suffers from a mental illness.
JNOV/New Trial- Defendant’s ground(s) for relief
Defendant seeks JNOV/new trial for two reasons related to the sole
ground for relief under CCP § 657 (6), insufficiency of the evidence to justify
the verdict, and/or the verdict is against law, specifically:
“..two
independent bases: (1) that the 90-day notice to quit (hereinafter “Termination
Notice”) failed to include disclosures required under federal law when
terminating a tenancy at a federally subsidized
housing project, and (2) that the facts as developed at trial and determined by
the jury’s verdict fail to support a judgment for unlawful detainer based on a
theory that Defendant used the property for an illegal purpose.” (Motion 2:4-8)
Defendant’s
first point involves defects in the Notice, as follows: failure to advise of rights to make a reply
and examine documents, questions which the jury answered against Defendant in
Questions 2 and 3 of the special verdict.
Defendant’s second point involves Questions 4-8 of the special verdict
where Plaintiff was found to have failed to allow inspection only once, which
Defendant claims is insufficient to constitute an unlawful purpose under CCP §
1161(4). The court notes that
Defendant’s motion papers did not address Defendant’s failure to provide income
documentation for the annual recertification process, which was one of two
reasons he lost his subsidy. (See, e.g., Jury Instruction C)
Opposition filed 2/6/23.
Reply: None filed.
The court will take the matter under submission after hearing
argument.