Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 23STCV12844, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff 1200 Management, LLC, as lessor of a commercial property, brings this action against lessee Defendant Michael N. Laguerre. Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to pay rent due under a commercial lease and asserts a single cause of action for breach of written lease.

On December 31, 2024, Plaintiff served the motion on Defendant, who is in pro per, by mail and email. The addresses listed for Defendant on the Proof of Service match those provided to this court. (Mail: 1540 N. Allen Ave. Pasadena, CA 91104; Email: mikeylaguerre@gmail.com.)

By this court’s count, Plaintiff provided 86-days of notice before the hearing. Thus, Plaintiff provided sufficient notice under Code of Civil Procedure Section 437(b)(2), both as it existed at the time Defendant filed the motion (requiring 75 days notice, plus two for electronic service), and as modified effective January 1, 2025 (requiring 81-days notice, plus two for electronic service). (CCP §§ 437(b)(2); 1010.6(a)(4)(B).) Therefore, the notice and service requirements are met here.

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843. In analyzing motions for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent's claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.” Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294. Thus, summary judgment is granted when, after the Court’s consideration of the evidence set forth in the papers and all reasonable inferences accordingly, no triable issues of fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(c); Villa v. McFarren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733, 741.

Where a plaintiff moves for summary judgment, the burden is to produce admissible evidence on each element of a “cause of action” entitling him or her to judgment. (CCP § 437c(p)(1); see Hunter v. Pacific Mechanical Corp. (1995) 37 CA4th 1282, 1287, 44 CR2d 335, 337 (citing text) (disapproved on other grounds by Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 C4th 826, 107 CR2d 841)). This means that plaintiffs who bear the burden of proof at trial by a preponderance of evidence must produce evidence that would require a reasonable trier of fact to find any underlying material fact more likely than not. At that point, the burden shifts to defendant “to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.” (CCP § 437c(p)(1)).

In analyzing motions for summary judgment or adjudication, courts must apply a three-step analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine whether the moving party has negated the opponent's claims; and (3) determine whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material factual issue.” (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294.)

Plaintiff “owns the property located at 215 West 6th Street, Los Angeles, California 90014.” (FAC ¶ 1.) On or about April 9, 2021, Plaintiff’s predecessor, as lessor, and Defendant Laguerre, as lessee, entered into a Standard Industrial/Commercial Multi-Tenant Lease – Gross (the “Lease”), pursuant to which Defendant leased from Plaintiff the premises located at 215 West 6th Street, R112, Los Angeles, California 90014 (the “Premises”). (Id. ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff, as successor lessor under the Lease, now brings this action against Defendant Laguerre for unpaid rent and late charges in the amount of $56,845.07. (Id. ¶ 12.) [FN 1] Plaintiff asserts a single cause of action against Defendant for breach of written lease.

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on the First Amended Complaint. Even where a motion for summary judgment is unopposed, the moving party still must meet its initial burden. (Wright v. Stang Mfg. Co. (1997) 54 Cal. App. 4th 1218, 1228; Harman v. Mono General Hospital (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 607, 613.) The burden begins with Plaintiff to produce admissible evidence on each element of its cause of action entitling it to judgment. (CCP § 437c(p)(1).) To prevail on a breach of contract claim, Plaintiff must establish “(1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.” (D'Arrigo Bros. of California v. United Farmworkers of Am. (2014) 224 Cal. App. 4th 790, 800.)

On or about April 9, 2021, Manhattan Loft, LLC—Plaintiff 1200 Management LLC’s predecessor in interest—entered into a Standard Industrial/Commercial Multi-Tenant Lease, pursuant to which Defendant Laguerre leased from Manhattan Loft the premises located at 215 West 6th Street, Unit #R112, Los Angeles, CA 90014. (SSUMF 1.) On April 2, 2022, Manhattan assigned all rights and interests it held in the lease to Plaintiff. (SSUMF 2.)

Plaintiff submits a declaration from Rommy Shy, its Manager. Shy attests to the following facts. During the lease period, Plaintiff performed all obligations required to be performed by it under the terms of the Lease. (Shy Decl. ¶ 4.) Shy further attests that “[f]rom August 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021, Defendant breached the Lease by failing to pay two (2) monthly rent payments of $2,200 each, for a total of $4,400,” and provides a copy of the “Tenant Ledger” tracking Defendant’s payments due under the Lease and all payments made to Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 5, Exh. C.) [FN 2]

From October 1, 2021 through February 1, 2022, Defendant breached the Lease by failing to pay five (5) monthly rent payments of $2,200 each, for a total of $11,000. (Id. ¶ 8.) Pursuant to Paragraph 13.4 of the Lease, 1200 Management is entitled to a late charge of 10% of any amount due under the Lease which is not paid within five (5) days of the date when such amount became due and payable. (Id. ¶ 23, Exh. A, ¶ 13.4.) Defendant also breached the Lease by failing to pay late fees of $220 per month during these months, totaling $1,100. (Id. ¶ 9.)

Commencing March 1, 2022, the monthly rent for the Premises increased from $2,200 to $2,310. (Id. ¶ 10, Exh. A, ¶ 50 [providing that “On March 1st, 2022, base rent shall increase by 5% and shall increase 5% annually on July 5th of each year henceforth”].) From March 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022, Defendant breached the Lease by failing to pay four (4) monthly rent payments of $2,310 each, for a total of $9,240. (Id. ¶ 11.) Defendant also breached the Lease by failing to pay late fees of $231 per month for these months, totaling $924. (Id. ¶ 12.)

Commencing July 1, 2022, the monthly rent for the Premises increased from $2,310 to $2,420. (Id. ¶ 13.) From July 1, 2022 through March 31, 2023, Defendant breached the Lease by failing to pay nine (9) monthly rent payments of $2,420 each, for a total of $21,780. (Id. ¶ 14.) Defendant also breached the Lease by failing to pay late fees of $242 per month for these months, totaling $2,079. (Id. ¶ 15.)

Commencing April 1, 2023, the monthly rent for the Premises increased from $2,420 to $2,662. (Id. ¶ 16.) From April 1, 2023 through May 31, 2023, Defendant breached the Lease by failing to pay two (2) monthly rent payments of $2,662 each, for a total of $5,324. (Id. ¶ 17.) Defendant also breached the Lease by failing to pay late fees of $266.20 per month for these months, totaling $532.40. (Id. ¶ 18.)

Defendants vacated the premises on June 12, 2023. (Id. ¶ 19.) As of that date, the principal balance of unpaid rent and late charges owed by Defendants to Plaintiff was $56,306.07. (Id. ¶ 20.) After application of the $4,000 security deposit, the principal amount of rent and other charges owing from Defendant to Plaintiff was $52,306.07. (Id. ¶ 21.)

Pursuant to Paragraph 13.5 of the Lease, Plaintiff is entitled to recover interest at the rate of 10% per annum on all payments “other than late charges” payable to it which are not paid when due. (Id. ¶ 24, Exh. A, 13.5.) As of the date Plaintiff filed this motion (December 31, 2024), prejudgment interest from April 1, 2024 (one year after the expiration of Los Angeles City’s COVID rent protections) was $3,926.54. (Id. ¶ 22.)

Considering the above evidence, Plaintiff has met its burden to establish all elements of its breach of contract cause of action. This switches the burden to Defendant to establish the existence of a triable issue of material fact. By failing to oppose, Defendant has not done so.

FN 2 - Plaintiff does not seek to recover from Defendant late fees that accrued during the time period of August 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021. (Shy Decl. ¶ 6.) Also, Defendant had a credit of $73.33 which resulted from a proration of rent in May 2021 and reduced the principal by that amount. (Id. ¶ 7.)