Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STUD01359, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STUD01359    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Power House, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on July 19, 2021 against Defendants Rachel Morya Garza Perez, Jesus Perez, Jesus Garza Perez, Jr., Jesus Perez, Jr., and Rosa I. Villalobos. The operative First Amended Complaint was filed on July 29, 2022, and asserts causes of action for (1) declaratory relief (bona fide purchaser), (2) declaratory relief (res judicata), and (3) declaratory relief (attack on judgment).

On March 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for forcible detainer entitled Power House, LLC v. Rachel Perez, et al., Case No. 22STUD01359 (the “UD Action”).[1] On August 11, 2022, the Court in the UD Action entered a judgment. The August 11, 2022 Judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Rachel Perez and Joe Perez. The Judgment granted Plaintiff restitution and possession of the premises located at 1419 West 105th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90047 (the “1419 Property”). On October 11, 2022, a Writ of Possession was issued in the UD Action, listing judgment debtors Rachel Perez and Joe Perez.

On October 21, Rodney Steele (“Steele”) filed a Claim of Right to Possession as to the 1419 Property. No opposition to the claim was filed.

Discussion

“The procedures contemplated by the Arrieta[2] court were codified beginning in 1982. Section 1174.3 was enacted in 1986. Designed to protect tenants like Arrieta who are not named in the unlawful detainer judgment, the statute sets out a formal procedure for making a claim of right to possession….” (Cardenas v. Noren (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1344, 1349 [internal citations omitted].)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1174.3, subdivision (a)(1) provides as follows:

“Except as provided in paragraph (2), unless a prejudgment claim of right to possession has been served upon occupants in accordance with Section 415.46, any occupant not named in the judgment for possession who occupied the premises on the date of the filing of the action may object to enforcement of the judgment against that occupant by filing a claim of right to possession as prescribed in this section. A claim of right to possession may be filed at any time after service or posting of the writ of possession pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 715.020, up to and including the time at which the levying officer returns to effect the eviction of those named in the judgment of possession. Filing the claim of right to possession shall constitute a general appearance for which a fee shall be collected as provided in Section 70614 of the Government Code. Section 68511.3 of the Government Code applies to the claim of right to possession. An occupant or tenant who is named in the action shall not be required to file a claim of right to possession to protect that occupant’s right to possession of the premises.”

            The Court notes that here, Steele is not named in the August 1, 2022 Judgment in the UD Action, nor is he named as a defendant in the UD Action. Steele filed a Claim of Right to Possession (Form CP10) signed under penalty of perjury. Form CP10 provides, inter alia, “Complete this form only if ALL of these statements are true: 1. You are NOT named in the accompanying form called Writ of Possession. 2. You occupied the premises on or before the date the unlawful detainer (eviction) action was filed… 3. You still occupy the premises. 4. A Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession form was NOT served with the Summons and Complaint OR this eviction results from a foreclosure.” 

The Court notes that no date is included in Section 4 of the Claim. In addition, although Steele appears to have checked one of the items in Section 13 of the Claim, much of the text on the second page of the Claim is faded and illegible.

            Code of Civil Procedure section 1174.3, subdivision (c)(2) provides in part that “[a] claim of right to possession is effected by…(2) Presenting a completed claim form in person with identification to the sheriff, marshal, or other levying officer as prescribed in this section, and delivering to the court within two court days after its presentation, the appropriate fee or form for proceeding in forma pauperis without delivering the amount equivalent to 15 days’ rent...” In Section 12(b) of the Claim, Steele checked the box indicating that he presented the claim form to the sheriff, marshal, or other levying officer, and within two court days, shall deliver to the court (1) a copy of the completed claim form or a receipt, and (2) the court filing fee or form for proceeding in forma pauperis.

            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1174.3, subdivision (f), “[i]f a claim is made without delivery to the court of the appropriate filing fee or a form for proceeding in forma pauperis, as prescribed in this section, the claim shall be immediately deemed denied and the court shall so order....”

Code of Civil Procedure section 1174.3, subdivision (d) provides as follows:

“At the hearing, the court shall determine whether there is a valid claim of possession by the claimant who filed the claim, and the court shall consider all evidence produced at the hearing, including, but not limited to, the information set forth in the claim. The court may determine the claim to be valid or invalid based upon the evidence presented at the hearing. The court shall determine the claim to be invalid if the court determines that the claimant is an invitee, licensee, guest, or trespasser...”

Lastly, “[i]f, upon hearing, the court determines that the claim is valid, then the court shall order further proceedings” as specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1174.3, subdivision (e). (Code Civ. Proc., § 1174.3, subd. (e).) “If the claim of right to possession is denied pursuant to subdivision (f), or if the claimant fails to appear at the hearing or, upon hearing, if the court determines that there are no valid claims, or if the claimant does not prevail at a trial on the merits of the unlawful detainer action, the court shall order the levying officer to proceed with enforcement of the original writ of possession of real property as deemed amended to include the claimant, which shall be effected within a reasonable time not to exceed five days.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1174.3, subd. (g).)

Conclusion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1174.3, subdivision (d), the Court will determine at the hearing whether there is a valid claim of possession by Steele, and will consider all evidence produced at the hearing, including, but not limited to, the information set forth in Steele’s Claim.

The Clerk is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  December 7, 2022                          ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet