Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 22STUD03191, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

On November 28, 2023, the Court set a December 14, 2023 hearing for Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff did not file its motion before the December 14, 2023 hearing, so the Court continued the motion.

Plaintiff filed its motion for summary judgment on December 26, 2024. Defendant Nelly Melchor did not file a written opposition before the Court posted its tentative ruling, but the Court will still consider any opposition at the hearing. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1351(b).)

A motion for summary judgment in an unlawful detainer action may be made on five days’ notice, and “[s]ummary judgment shall be granted or denied on the same basis as a motion under Section 437c.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1170.7.)

A plaintiff moving for summary adjudication must satisfy the initial burden of proof by proving each element of a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) That includes damages when damages are an element. (Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 226, 241.) Then the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce “substantial responsive evidence.” (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 162-163.)

Plaintiff’s motion is based solely on Defendant Melly Melchor’s deemed admissions (“RFAs”). The motion is supported by a declaration from Plaintiff’s agent and a declaration from Plaintiff’s counsel that authenticates Defendant’s Requests for Admissions and the Court’s June 20, 2023 order deeming the admissions admitted.

A. The Court Will Not Deny the Motion Due to Plaintiff’s Failure to Include a Separate Statement.

The motion does not include “a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts that the moving party contends are undisputed.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(1).)

“Separate statements are required not to satisfy a sadistic urge to torment lawyers, but rather to afford due process to opposing parties and to permit trial courts to expeditiously review complex motions for [summary adjudication] and summary judgment to determine quickly and efficiently whether material facts are undisputed.” ((United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 335 (United Community Church).) “The separate statement ‘provides a convenient and expeditious vehicle permitting the trial court to hone in on the truly disputed facts.’ [Citation.]” (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252 (Nazir).) “[I]t is no answer to say the facts set out in the supporting evidence and memorandum of points and authorities are sufficient. ‘Such an argument does not aid the trial court at all since it then has to cull through often discursive argument to determine what is admitted, what is contested, and where the evidence on each side of the issue is located.’” (United Community Church, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at p. 335.) “The due process aspect of the separate statement requirement is self-evident—to inform the opposing party of the evidence to be disputed to defeat the motion.” (Id. at p. 337.)

“The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may in the court’s discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denying the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(1).)

Pages 4 and 5 of the motion set forth a list of specific facts that Plaintiff contends are undisputed due to Defendant’s admissions. This serves the same purpose as a separate statement. Therefore, the Court will not deny the motion due to Plaintiff’s failure to include a separate statement.

B. Defendant’s Deemed Admissions Establish Each Element of Unlawful Detainer.

A tenant of real property is guilty of unlawful detainer when the tenant remains in possession without the landlord’s permission after default in the payment of rent and three days’ notice requiring payment of rent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161, subd. (2).)

Plaintiff argues that there are no disputed facts because Defendant has admitted all matters to establish unlawful detainer. (Motion at pp. 4-6.)

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).) “[A] deemed admitted order establishes, by judicial fiat, that a nonresponding party has responded to the requests by admitting the truth of all matters contained therein.” (Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973, 979.) “Any matter admitted in response to a request for admission is conclusively established against the party making the admission in the pending action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.410, subd. (a).) “As a general rule an admission is conclusive in the action as to the party making it. [Citations.] Absent leave of court to amend or withdraw the admission, no contradictory evidence may be introduced.” (Murillo v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 730, 736 (Murillo).)

On April 4, 2023, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Admissions, Set One, but Defendant did not serve responses. (Rossetto Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. 2.) On June 20, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to deem the RFAs admitted. (Rossetto Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. 3.)

Through the deemed admissions, Plaintiff has established that it was the owner and landlord of the property, Defendant was a tenant who owed at least $1,669.00 in past-due rent, Defendant received the three-day notice on April 22, 2022, the notice was not defective, and Defendant failed to comply with the notice. (Rossetto Decl., Ex. 3 [RFA Nos. 1, 3-4, 7-8, 12].) The monthly rent was at least $1,669.00, and the fair rental value was at least $55.63 per day. (Rossetto Decl., Ex. 3 [RFA Nos. 5-6].) Defendant remains in possession of the premises, does not have a legitimate reason for failing to comply with the notice, and did not provide a declaration of financial distress. (Rossetto Decl., Ex. 3 [RFA Nos. 9-11, 23-24].) The property was habitable with no substantial defective conditions and no outstanding government citations about substantial defective conditions. (Rossetto Decl., Ex. 3 [RFA Nos. 14-16].) Plaintiff has not received rental assistance or other financial compensation from any source corresponding to the amount demanded or the amount accrued after the notice, and it does not have any pending application for rental assistance or other financial compensation. (Rossetto Decl., Ex. 3 [RFA Nos. 25-27].)

Defendant did not file a written opposition with evidence to show that a triable issue of material fact exists, nor can she submit evidence to contradict her judicial admissions. (Murillo, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 736.)

(2) Adding “per properly filed memorandum of costs” at the end of subsection (d).

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court