Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV30771, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30771    Hearing Date: March 4, 2025    Dept: 50

 Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiffs Northland THEA LLC; Northland THEA Portfolio LLC; Northland THEA Portfolio II LLC; Northland THEA Portfolio III LLC; and Northland THEA IV LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on December 15, 2023 against Defendants Ashley Wynn and Chelsea Wynn (jointly, “Defendants”). The Complaint alleges one cause of action for breach of lease.

Plaintiffs now move for an order granting summary judgment against Defendants on Plaintiffs’ singular cause of action for breach of lease. The motion is unopposed.

Legal Standard

“[A] motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” ((Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. ((Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) If the moving party carries this burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a prima facie showing that a triable issue of material fact exists. ((Ibid.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” ((Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

For purposes of motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication, “[a] plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that party’s 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. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The defendant or cross-defendant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” ((Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)

Discussion

A.    Allegations of the Complaint

In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they “own an apartment complex located at 1000 W. 8th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (‘Thea’).” (Compl., ¶ 11.) “On or about August 27, 2021, Defendants Ashley Wynn and Chelsea Wynn (together, ‘Defendants’), as tenants, and Plaintiffs’ predecessor in interest, Greenland LA Metropolis Development III LLC, DBA ‘Thea at Metropolis,’ as landlord, entered into a 13-month lease (the ‘Lease”) for Unit 1128 of Thea, more specifically described as 1000 W. 8th Street, Unit 1128, Los Angeles, CA 90017 (the ‘Premises’).” (Compl., ¶ 12.) “When the Lease expired on September 29, 2022, it converted to a month-to-month tenancy.” (Compl., ¶ 13.) “Section 6 of the Lease provided that Defendants would pay $3,934.00 per month for rent.” (Compl., ¶ 14.)

“In or about May 2022, Defendants stopped paying rent, but continued to occupy the Premises.” (Compl., ¶ 15.) “On or about June 15, 2023, Plaintiffs served Defendants with a Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit for non-payment of rent from April 2023 to June 2023.” (Compl., ¶ 16.) “On or about June 28, 2023, after Defendants did not pay rent or quit within the three-day notice period, Plaintiffs brought an unlawful detainer action against Defendants seeking, inter alia, forfeiture of the Lease, possession of the Premises, and past-due rent due from April 2023, onward (the ‘Unlawful Detainer Action’).” (Compl., ¶ 17.)

“On October 26, 2023, the Court in the Unlawful Detainer Action entered judgment against Defendants and ordered that, inter alia, (i) the Lease was forfeited, (ii) Defendants were to pay Plaintiffs past-due rent from April 2023 to June 2023 plus holdover damages, and (iii) Defendants were to return the Premises to Plaintiffs.” (Compl., ¶ 18.) Plaintiffs allege that “[i]n addition to the damages awarded to Plaintiffs in the Unlawful Detainer Action, Defendants are liable for the full amount of Plaintiffs’ damages accrued through March 2023, including at least $43,274.00 in past-due rent.” (Compl., ¶ 19.)

B.    First Cause of Action for Breach of Lease  

In the first cause of action for breach of lease, Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that “Defendants failed to abide by the terms of the Lease by failing to pay rent…Plaintiffs have been harmed as a result of Defendants’ breach and are entitled to an award of damages, in an amount to be proven at trial, including at least $43,274.00 in past-due rent.” (Compl., ¶¶ 22-23.)

Plaintiffs cite to CSAA Ins. Exchange v. Hodroj (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 272, 276, where the Court of Appeal noted that “[t]he elements of a breach of contract claim are that a contract was formed; that the plaintiff did everything required by the contract; that the defendant did not do something required by the contract; and that the plaintiff was harmed as a result.”

In support of the motion, Plaintiffs submit the Declaration of Natali Gebran. Plaintiffs are referred to collectively as “Northland” in Ms. Gebran’s declaration. Ms. Gebran states that “Northland owns a luxury apartment building in downtown Los Angeles commonly known as ‘Thea.’…Northland employs Greystar, one of the nation’s largest property management companies, to manage Thea’s day-to-day operations. I am employed by Greystar and serve as Thea’s Regional Portfolio Manager.” (Gebran Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)

Ms. Gebran states that “[o]n August 27, 2021, Defendants, as tenants, and Northland’s predecessor-in-interest, as landlord, entered into a thirteen-month lease (the ‘Lease’) for Unit 1128 of Thea (the ‘Premises’) for $3,934.00 per month. A true and correct copy of the Lease is attached hereto as Exhibit A.” (Gebran Decl., ¶ 5.) Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated the first element of a breach of contract claim, that “a contract was formed.” ((Ibid.)

Ms. Gebran states that “[o]n information and belief, both Northland and its predecessor-in-interest performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required on their part to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Lease.” (Gebran Decl., ¶ 10.) Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated the second element of a breach of contract claim, that “plaintiff did everything required by the contract.” ((Id. at p. 276.)  

Ms. Gebran states that “[a]fter Defendants entered the Lease, they stopped paying rent, but continued to occupy the Premises. On June 15, 2023, Northland served Defendants with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit.” (Gebran Decl., ¶ 6.) As set forth above, Ms. Gebran states that Defendants’ Lease for Unit 1128 of the Premises was $3,934.00 per month. (Gebran Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. A.) “On June 28, 2023, after Defendants did not ‘pay rent or quit,’ Northland brought an unlawful detainer proceeding seeking forfeiture of the Lease, possession of the Premises, and past-due rent from April 2023 onward (the ‘Unlawful Detainer Action’).” (Gebran Decl., ¶ 7.)

Ms. Gebran indicates that “[o]n October 26, 2023, the court in the Unlawful Detainer Action entered judgment against Defendants and ordered, among other things, that: (1) the Lease was forfeited; (2) Defendants were to pay Northland past-due rent from April 2023 to June 2023, plus holdover damages, in the amount of $24,902.00; (3) Defendants must return the Premises to Northland; and (4) the record in the Unlawful Detainer Action would remain unsealed because of Defendants’ misconduct.” (Gebran Decl., ¶ 8.) “Despite the judgment in the Unlawful Detainer Action, Defendants refused to return the Premises to Northland. Northland ultimately recovered the Premises on December 31, 2023 after availing itself of the Sheriff Department’s lockout remedy.” (Gebran Decl., ¶ 9.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated the third element of a breach of contract claim, that “the defendant[s] did not do something required by the contract.” ((Ibid.)

Ms. Gebran further indicates in her declaration that “[t]o date, Defendants owe Northland $85,828.82 in past-due rent and related fees. See Line No. 143578937 of Defendants’ Resident Ledger, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.” (Gebran Decl., ¶ 11.) Ms. Gebran states that “[b]ecause Northland has already obtained a judgment against Defendants in the amount of $24,902.00, Northland only seeks to recover $60,926.82 from Defendants through this action.” (Gebran Decl., ¶ 12.) Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated the fourth element of a breach of contract claim, that “the plaintiff was harmed as a result.” ((Ibid.)

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden of showing that there is no defense to the breach of lease cause of action because Plaintiffs have “proved each element of the cause of action entitling [Plaintiffs] to judgment on the cause of action.” ((Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Defendants do not oppose the instant motion. Thus, the Court does not find that Defendants have raised a triable issue of material fact as to the breach of lease cause of action. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

Lastly, the Court notes that in the Conclusion section of the memorandum of points and authorities, Plaintiffs “request[] that the Court grant the Motion and award [Plaintiffs] $60,926.82 plus $1,200.00 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Lease.” (Mot. at p. 3:5-6.) Plaintiffs do not cite to any legal authority to support their request for attorneys’ fees. The Court does not find that Plaintiffs have demonstrated their entitlement to attorney’s fees. Thus, the Court denies such request for attorney’s fees without prejudice.

///

///

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are entitled to judgment against Defendants in the amount of $60,926.82.

The Court orders Plaintiffs to file and serve a proposed judgment within 10 days of the date of this Order.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this Order.

DATED:  March 4, 2025                                ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court