Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00005, Date: 2022-12-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00005    Hearing Date: December 29, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 12-29-22 (a/f 3-14-23 via specially set 11-22-22 ex parte order)

Case #22CHCV00005

Trial Date: Concluded

STAY

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Patrick Graham

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Macaria Beltran, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Stay

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On January 4, 2022, Plaintiff Macaria Beltran, trustee of the MCB Trust, filed a complaint for unlawful detainer based on an alleged breach of a month to month residential lease agreement in November 2021.

On August 19, 2022, the court held a bench trial and ruled in favor of plaintiff landlord. The court entered judgment on September 12, 2022, which provides for possession within 30 days of the order, and the return of keys, clickers, and gate operating systems. The writ of possession was entered on September 29, 2022.

On November 8, 2022, the court denied Defendant’s motion for relief from forfeiture.

RULING: Granted.

Defendant Patrick Graham moves for a stay of enforcement of the unlawful detainer judgment pending an appeal on the judgment and denied motion for relief from forfeiture. Defendant filed a notice of appeal on November 16, 2022, and notice designating the record on appeal on November 18, 2022. On November 22, 2022, the court stayed any lockout pending the appeal, and set the subject hearing.

The motion consists of a summary of the arguments for the appeal, with a single citation to Code of Civil Procedure section 1176. The section provides:

(a) An appeal taken by the defendant shall not automatically stay proceedings upon the judgment. Petition for stay of the judgment pending appeal shall first be directed to the judge before whom it was rendered. Stay of judgment shall be granted when the court finds that the moving party will suffer extreme hardship in the absence of a stay and that the nonmoving party will not be irreparably injured by its issuance. If the stay is denied by the trial court, the defendant may forthwith file a petition for an extraordinary writ with the appropriate appeals court. If the trial or appellate court stays enforcement of the judgment, the court may condition the stay on whatever conditions the court deems just, but in any case it shall order the payment of the reasonable monthly rental value to the court monthly in advance as rent would otherwise become due as a condition of issuing the stay of enforcement. As used in this subdivision, “reasonable rental value” means the contract rent unless the rental value has been modified by the trial court in which case that modified rental value shall be used.

(b) A new cause of action on the same agreement for the rental of real property shall not be barred because of an appeal by any party.

Code Civ. Proc., § 1176

Section 1176, subdivision (a) governs the finding for the necessity of stay pending appeal, and allows for the trial court to set terms as it deems appropriate. (Selma Auto Mall II v. Appellate Department (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1672, 1681-1682.) The stay should be conditioned on terms bearing a reasonable relationship to potential injury to the landlord. (Id., at pp. 1686-1687.)

Plaintiff in a two court day late opposition represents the agreed upon rent as $10,000/month. Plaintiff also reiterates the basis of the unlawful detainer, including alterations to the premises and conduct inconsistent with a residential lease, such as hosted concerts. Plaintiff challenges any showing of hardship based on the availability of other comparably, even lower priced, rentals in the area. Plaintiff requests any relief conditioned upon payment of rent. Finally, Plaintiff challenges the sufficiency of the appeal.

Defendant in reply contends the stay is appropriate, and the attachments to the opposition are irrelevant. “Substantial questions” remain to be determined on appeal. Defendant also contends Plaintiff unsuccessfully challenges the lack of hardship and prejudice.

The appeal only addresses the judgment for unlawful detainer and the denied motion for relief from forfeiture. The court declines to consider any potential arguments regarding the unrelated action regarding the claim for the purchase and/or improvement of the property.

The court finds the pending appeal presents a reasonable basis for a stay of the action as to the unlawful detainer action and denied relief from forfeiture motion. The law requires the continued payment of rent pending the entire appellate period for a stay under this section. (Ibid.) The court therefore orders continued payment of rent to Plaintiff landlord pursuant to the terms of the lease. Any failure to pay in no way bars a renewed action for unlawful detainer regardless of the status of any appeal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1176, subd. (b).) In other words, a default on the required rent payment during the appeal will allow for a renewed unlawful detainer action.

The court finds no evidence in support of the claimed $10,000/month rent in the attachments to the opposition. [Declaration of Macaria Beltran, Ex. 1& 2; Declaration of Dennis Block, Ex. 3.] In fact the court judgment identifies the last stated rent at $5,000/month. [Block Decl., Ex. 4.] Barring proof of a higher rent at the time of the hearing, the court assumes an existing rental rate of $5,000/month. The parties are ordered to submit an order articulating a system for payment and proof of the rent under the existing lease terms. Any agreement should also include a determination of a default period. Any potential new action may proceed to the unlawful detainer court if below the unlimited jurisdiction limit.

Graham to give notice.