Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case 22CHCV00562 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

On March 17, 2022, Plaintiff Bright Vision Advisors, Inc. filed a complaint for unlawful detainer based on an alleged termination of the lease agreement for commercial premises located at 20751 Marilla St., Chatsworth on June 15, 2022. Plaintiff also alleges daily holdover charges of $500/day. Defendant answered on July 29, 2022.

Request for Judicial Notice Granted as to the filing of the complaint, Pura Vida Tres, Inc. v. Bright Advisors, Inc., 22STCV28482.

Plaintiff Bright Vision Advisors, Inc. (Bright Vision Advisors) moves for summary judgment on the unlawful detainer action based on the termination of the lease upon the lapse of the lease term. Bright Vision Advisors only seeks the right to immediate possession.

At the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff, the court shows no reply 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 Plaintiff present a written reply prior to the time of the hearing but after publication of the tentative, or during oral argument thereby prompting further consideration.

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 community of Chatsworth, City of Los Angeles. Because the unlawful is unrelated to any breach for non-payment of rent, the City of Los Angeles moratorium for commercial premises is not applicable to the subject action.

According to Bright Vision Advisors, the underlying dispute involves cross-accusations regarding a breach of the Management Agreement. Both parties operate cannabis related businesses at the premises. According to Bright Vision Advisors, Defendant Pura Vida Tres, Inc. (Pura Vida) first took possession of the premises pursuant to a sublease in January 2021, which was then superseded by the “Management Agreement” dated March 22, 2021.

Section 4(c) of the Management Agreement references a previously existing five year Commercial Lease Agreement (e.g. Master Lease) between Bright Vision Advisors and the third party property owners. The Master Lease allowed the creation of the governing sublease and subsequent Management Agreement between the parties, with Bright Vision Advisors acting as master lessor. [See Declaration of Amjad El-Atari.] The sublease and Management Agreement provides for a five-year term and/or a term concurrent with the Master Lease.[1]

The subject action comes as a result of an assertion that Pura Vida terminated the Management Agreement prior to the expiration of the five-year term upon service of a June 15, 2022 dated letter. The letter, a Notice of Termination of Management Services Agreement, contends that Bright Vision Advisors breached the Management Agreement, due to its failure to pay the $20,000/month “Cultivation License” fee for April and May, 2022.[2] [Al-Atari Decl., Ex. C, E.] Bright Vision Advisors subsequently filed the subject complaint and brought the motion for summary judgment on grounds that said June 15, 2022 letter in fact constitutes breach of the Management Agreement by Defendant, thereby supporting unlawful detainer. Bright Vision Advisors served a Notice to Quit on July 20, 2022. [Ibid.]

Defendant in opposition contends the dispute arises from a representation of Bright Vision of its intent to cease operations, thereby allowing Pura Vida to seek a direct relationship with the third party landowners pursuant to the Management Agreement (e.g. takeover the Master Lease). Pura Vida alleges the relationship broke down when Bright Vision sought to sell the Pura Vida cannabis business license, and cessation of licensing fee payments. Pura Vida refused to sell its license, and describes the subject action as retaliatory. Pura Vida characterizes the subject as “far too complicated” to be resolved in the subject summary motion, and contends triable issues of material fact exist on the breach of lease agreement claims. Pura Vida alternatively moves to continue the hearing for further discovery, if the court is inclined to grant the motion.

The motion constitutes a series of conclusions that the June 15 2022 letter constituted a breach of section 4(c) of the Management Agreement. This section of the agreement only addresses the lease term. The motion itself otherwise lacks specific, legally supported argument for the finding of a breach of the agreement thereby providing a basis for a finding of a breach and right to terminate the management agreement. Bright Vision Advisors additionally denies any retaliatory conduct with a reflexive reference to the unarticulated “breach” argument. The court therefore finds no evidentiary and/or legal basis for termination of the management agreement, and rightful declaration of a holdover tenancy. The motion is therefore denied, due to Plaintiff’s failure to establish a breach of the lease, and summary right to eviction. The court additionally finds triable issues of material facts regarding the breach of the lease itself, and, again, right to possession under the terms of the actual lease. [Declartion of Alejandro Oconitrillo.]

[1]The terms of the Master Lease are not provided.

[2]The letter from defendant Pura Vida references section 4(a) of the Management Agreement, which remains redacted in the motion supporting exhibits.