Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23CHCV01716, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV01716    Hearing Date: November 27, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 11-27-23 a/f 4-11-24

Case # 23CHCV01716

Trial Date: 12-4-23

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, 1S REO Opportunity 1, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendant, Rafael Lopez, pro per

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Summary Judgment on the Complaint for Unlawful Detainer

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On June 14, 2023, plaintiff 1S REO Opportunity 1, LLC filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against defendant Rafael Lopez and all unknown occupants, et al. following the foreclosure sale of the property.

RULING : Granted.

Request for Judicial Notice: Granted.

Plaintiff 1S REO Opportunity 1, LLC moves for summary judgment on grounds that Plaintiff acquired the property through a non-judicial foreclosure trustee sale, and seeks exclusive possession of the premises.

The court electronic filing system shows no opposition (due 11-16-23) or reply (due 11-21-23) on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff. The court reserves the right to take the motion under submission pending oral argument or later posted electronically filed documents.

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 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.) “On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) 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).) 

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inference that may be drawn form that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, 159 Cal.App.4th at 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) “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 motion for summary judgment comes following the June 14, 2023, verified complaint for unlawful detainer. The complaint alleges Plaintiff purchased 845 North Hagar Street, San Fernando, CA, on May 17, 2023, as part of the non-judicial foreclosure sale. Plaintiff recorded its Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale on June 6, 2023, and served the 3/30/90 Day Notice to Quit on June 8, 2023.

The court finds the complaint and notice complies with all requirements for unlawful detainer and Defendant presents no argument in opposition to the motion challenging the validity of the foreclosure sale and service of the notice. [Req. Jud. Not.]

The motion for summary judgment is therefore granted. Plaintiff is granted possession of the premises. Plaintiff does not seek any rents. The December 4, 2023, trial is vacated. Plaintiff to submit a judgment to the court.

Plaintiff to give notice.