Judge Stephen P. Pfahler, Case Number: 24STCV15822, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 24STCV15822, Date: 2024-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV15822 Hearing Date: October 31, 2024 Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 10-31-24

Case # 24STCV15822

Trial Date: Not Set

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Joycelyne Lew

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendant, Jerome Maida

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Summary Judgment on the Complaint for Unlawful Detainer

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On June 24, 2024, plaintiff Joycelyne Lew filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against defendant Jerome Maida. Defendant answered the complaint on July 8, 2024.

RULING : Off-Calendar.

Plaintiff Joycelyne Lew moves for summary judgment on grounds that Defendant Jerome Maida failed to pay rent. Plaintiff only moves for possession of the property.

The court electronic filing system shows no opposition or reply 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 opposition 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 24, 2024, verified complaint for unlawful detainer. The complaint alleges Defendant owes $49,800 in rent payments beginning on August 13, 2017, and accumulating through June 30, 2024.

The answer alleges a number of affirmative defenses, including improper overstatement of rent due, denial of the nuisance allegations in the operative complaint, denial of service, defective complaint, habitability challenges, estoppel, waiver, abatement due to another pending action (23STCV23692, 22STCV07730, 22STCV26093), violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and covenant of quiet enjoyment, and violation of Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (LARSO).

The court takes notice that the exact parties are/were in fact invovled in three other cases: Maida v. Lew, 23STCV23692; Lew v. Maida, 22STCV0730 (dismissed on December 4, 2023); and, Lew v. Maida, 22STCV26093 (dismissed on December 4, 2023). The two complaints filed by Lew were for forced detainer and unlawful detainer. The Maida v. Lew case is currently pending in Department 72. The subject case was filed before the instant motion for unlawful detainer.

Given Plaintiff raises a number of defenses in the subject action and said defenses appear as part of the issues before the court in the Maida v. Lew action, the court orders Plaintiff Lew to file a notice of related cases in Maida v. Lew, 23STCV23692. The court takes the motion for summary judgment off-calendar pending consideration by Department 72, due to potential abatement of the subject action and demonstrated forum shopping. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.80, subd. (a), 597.) If the court declines to relate the cases, Plaintiff may request special setting for the MSJ in this court, but the court will demand briefing on the potential defenses raised as causes of action in the previously filed action.

Plaintiff to give notice.