Judge: Rafael A. Ongkeko, Case: 23PDUD00328, Date: 2023-05-01 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: 23PDUD00328    Hearing Date: May 1, 2023    Dept: D

5/1/23

Osuna v. Valdiviezo (23PDUD00328)

Matter:  Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings

Background:  This unlawful detainer case involves premises located at 902 N. Pass Ave., garage unit, Burbank, CA 91505. Plaintiff is a successor landlord who seeks to evict Defendant based on the premises being a bootleg unit and not having a certificate of occupancy. 

Pleadings:  Landlord’s three-day notice to quit (Complaint, Exhibit 2; Trial Ex. 101) is based on a noncurable breach, specifically, “Maintaining a nuisance: structure is not permitted for occupancy,” and “Using the premises for an unlawful purpose/Tenants’ occupancy is a threat to the public health or safety.  Landlord is seeking to maintain compliance…, etc.”

Paragraph 7(a) of the complaint in unlawful detainer alleges a theory of nuisance, alleging “occupancy is a threat to the public health or safety.”  Defendant’s answer specifically denies this paragraph.  In ¶4c, Defendant’s answer further asserts “I have never threatened the health or safety of my neighbors or the public. The photo taken shows plastic bags that contain plastic recycled bottles that were near my living garage during the two weeks that was raining.  I have since then removed everything and it is not causing any harm or any public hazardous endangerment to the health and safety of the people.”    

Defendant’s answer alleges affirmative defenses of discrimination (¶3f); violation of the Tenant Protection Act (¶¶3h; 3w ); and acceptance of rent “from defendant to cover a period of time after the date the notice to quit expired.” (¶3i)  Defendant alleges that he “paid rent to Adam L Greenfield.”  He is current with rent and attaches six deposit receipts of $1300 each made to a Wells Fargo account #1499 between September 2022 and February 2023, funds which were not returned to Defendant (Answer, Exhibits 3, 4, 5).  Defendant further alleges he has never seen nor does he know Plaintiff and that a landlord-tenant relationship does not exist between the parties. (¶3w)

RJN, discovery and court ruling: 

The court grants Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice (RJN), in part, limited to the existence of the following, but not the truth of the matters asserted unless otherwise indicated:  the court file, specifically, the complaint and answer; the court’s minute order of 4/4/23 (for its truth); and the existence of the underlying documents relevant to the court’s ruling, specifically, the RFAs and responses thereto (RJN, Ex. 108).  The court denies the RJN of Exhibit 111 (responses to form interrogatories).  Exhibits 101 and 102 are denied as unnecessary; they are part of the complaint in this action.

Opposition:  None.

Grounds of MJOP:  Plaintiff landlord contends that “the answer filed and the discovery responses of Defendant MANUEL VALVIDEZIO fails (sic) to state sufficient facts to support an affirmative defense against Plaintiff’s claims for possession, hence there are no triable issues of material facts and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Motion, 2:2-5)

Tentative ruling:  The pleadings and judicially noticed facts are insufficient to eliminate any of Defendant’s affirmative defenses in order to avoid a trial.  The motion is DENIED.