Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00411, Date: 2022-10-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00411    Hearing Date: October 21, 2022    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 10-21-22 (set via 9-7-22 ex parte order)

Case #22CHCV00411

ENFORCE JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Santa Clarita Studios

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendant, Pacific Western Aerostructures

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Enforce Unlawful Detainer Judgment

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On June 7, 2022, Plaintiff Santa Clarita Studios filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against defendant Pacific Western Aerostructures. On July 28, 2022, the court entered the parties stipulated judgment.

RULING: Granted, Possession Only.

Plaintiff Santa Clarita Studios moves to enforce the stipulated judgment. On July 28, 2022, the court entered the parties’ stipulated judgment, whereby Defendant agreed to a certain payment schedule for both the rent deficiency and future rent. Defendant also agreed to vacate the premises no later than September 15, 2022, with defendant responsible for removal of all “equipment” and restoration of the premises to “pre-lease condition.”  Failure to remove the equipment upon vacating the premises will entitle Plaintiff to an additional $50,000 for the cost of removing the equipment.” The stipulation lastly provides Plaintiff with the right to “apply for the issuance of the Writ for a lockout upon any breach of these terms by Defendant by applying with the Court with accompanying Declaration.”

Plaintiff now contends Defendant violated the stipulation, due to its failure to timely vacate the premises by the September 15, 2022 deadline, and failure to make payment of the rent. The terms of the agreement require Plaintiff submit a declaration in support. The court finds the declaration sufficiently demonstrates a violation of the stipulation, and therefore constitutes a basis for entry of some form of judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1170.5, subd. (a); See Needelman v. DeWolf Realty Co., Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 750, 764.) Nevertheless, the court may only enter the terms in conformance with the stipulation. (Rooney v. Vermont Investment Corp. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 351, 369.)

The court docket shows no opposition at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff. Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion, and two days later a reply. The reply includes reiteration of arguments and a declaration regarding the continued occupation of the premises, default on rent, and request for attorney fees and sanctions.

The terms of the agreement contains contingencies regarding the state of the premises upon possession as well as the deficiency balance. Plaintiff also includes a request for attorney fees and “further damages against defendant and defendant’s counsel.” Other than the default on the payment and failure to vacate the premises, the court cannot calculate the exact monetary damages balance. The court also declines to award additional damages and fees outside the stipulation. The motion also lacks support for the recovery of sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5.

Because of the nature of unlawful detainer however, the court can enter judgment for possession separate and apart from any monetary damages considerations. (Northrop Corp. v. Chaparral Energy, Inc. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 725, 729.) The court finds the motion supports a finding for violation of the agreement, thereby entitling Plaintiff to judgment possession of the premises. [Declaration of Mike DeLorenzo.] The court therefore orders the submission of a judgment by Plaintiff for possession only, which Plaintiff may use to obtain a writ of possession and present to the Los Angeles County Sheriff for executing a lockout.

The court defers further consideration of monetary damages, which may include costs for equipment removal, holdover rents, etc. Plaintiff may set a motion regarding entry of a judgment for monetary damages via the court reservation system upon taking possession of the premises and the calculation of damages.

Plaintiff to give notice.