Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00180, Date: 2022-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00180    Hearing Date: August 3, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 8-3-22 a/f 9-8-22

Case #22CHCV00180

Trial Date: 9-6-22

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, 816 Partners, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Surge Dance Center, LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Summary Judgment

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On March 17, 2022, Plaintiff 816 Partners, LLC filed a complaint for unlawful detainer based on an alleged breach of the lease agreement for commercial premises located at 1201 Truman St., Suite A/B, San Fernando. Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to pay the $14957 rent due for March 2022. Defendant answered on March 29, 2022.

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff 816 Partners, LLC moves for summary judgment on the unlawful detainer action based on the failure to pay the rent due in March 2022. Plaintiff only seeks the right to immediate possession.

At the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff, the court showed no opposition filed. Because unlawful detainer procedural rules allow for the presentation of oppositions on a shorter time frame, the court reserves the right to take the matter under submission should Defendant timely present written opposition prior to the time of the hearing but after publication of the tentative, or oral argument.

The propriety of granting a motion for summary is subject to the same standards a motion in a general civil action brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1170.7.) The separate statement requirements are exempt. (Cal. Rules Ct., rule 3.1350(c) & (e), 3.1351) The law of summary judgment provides courts “a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843 (Aguilar).)  In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts employ 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.)

The pleadings frame the issues for motions, “since it is those allegations to which the motion must respond. (Citation.)”  (Scolinos v. Kolts (1995) 37 Cal. App. 4th 635, 640-641; FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 382-383; Jordan-Lyon Prods., LTD., v. Cineplex Odeon Corp. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1472.) A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Plaintiff need not disprove all defenses, if the elements of a cause of action are made. (Oldcastle Precast, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 554, 564; WRI Opportunity Loans II, LLC v. Cooper (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 525, 532.) “An issue of fact can only be created by a conflict in the evidence.  It is not created by speculation, conjecture, imagination or guesswork.”  (Lyons v. Security Pacific National Bank (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1041 (citation omitted).) 

The property is located in the City of San Fernando, County of Los Angeles. While the answer to the complaint checks section 3(g) for eviction control ordinances, the answer itself confirms the January 31, 2022 expiration of the Los Angeles County moratorium for commercial unlawful detainer actions based on defaults in rent. The complaint was filed on March 17, 2022—almost two months after the lapse of the moratorium. Defendant also alleges improper efforts to collect rent during the moratorium period, and improper statement of rent. Since the motion only seeks possession, the court declines to consider any defenses unrelated to possession.

Plaintiff supports the motion with admitted requests for admissions, whereby Defendant admits to the existence of the lease, service of the notice to pay rent or quit, and lack of any defects in the notice or service. [Declaration of John Byrne.] Plaintiff additionally presents evidence from the property manager regarding the failure to pay rent, thereby supporting the unlawful detainer action seeking possession. [Declaration of Gabe Guefen.]

The court finds Plaintiff establishes a breach of the lease, proper service of the notice pay rent or quit, and lack of any affirmative defenses barring the summary proceeding entitling Plaintiff to possession of the premises. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1174.)

The motion for summary judgment seeking possession of the premises is therefore granted. The trial remains set for September 8, 2022 for holdover rent. Defendant may raise any and all defenses at trial in response to the arguments for rental deficiency, but not possession.

Plaintiff to provide notice.