Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 22PSCV00968, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00968    Hearing Date: April 17, 2023    Dept: L

Plaintiff Weiss Industrial Holdings, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background   

Plaintiff Weiss Industrial Holdings, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

On or about October 20, 2014, Plaintiff, by written agreement, leased the property located at 5148 Bleeker Street, Unit B, Baldwin Park, CA 91706 (“Unit B”) to Defendant Moses Acosta (“Acosta”) for a three-year period (i.e., commencing December 1, 2014 and terminating October 31, 2017) (“Lease for Unit B”). Acosta signed a guaranty. On or about January 9, 2018, Plaintiff and Acosta signed a “Lease Extension/Amendment Agreement” (“Extension Agreement”), extending the term of the Lease for Unit B to December 31, 2020 and substituting Defendant Medical Grade Farms BP, Inc. (“Medical Grade”) in as lessee. The Extension Agreement incorporated the guaranty Acosta previously signed.

On or about April 1, 2019, Plaintiff, by written agreement, leased a second unit on the same property located at 5148 Bleeker Street, Unit B, Baldwin Park, CA 91706 (“Unit A”) to Medical Grade for a three-year period (i.e., commencing July 1, 2019 and terminating June 30, 2022) (“Lease for Unit A”). Acosta signed a guaranty.

On May 1, 2021, Medical Grade ceased paying rent and its share of the common area operating expenses, but continued to hold possession. Plaintiff has filed an unlawful detainer action re: Unit A. On January 1, 2021, Medical Grade ceased paying rent and its share of real property taxes on Unit B and abandoned Unit B before the expiration of the lease period.

On September 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Medical Grade, Acosta and Does 1-10 for:

1.                  Common Counts

2.                  Breach of Contract

3.                  Breach of Written Guaranty

4.                  Unjust Enrichment

On December 7, 2022, Medical Grade’s and Acosta’s defaults were entered. An Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment is set for April 17, 2023.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is denied without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

1.                 Plaintiff references that an unlawful detainer proceeding was initiated for Unit A. Plaintiff is requested to provide the court with information as to when judgment was obtained in that proceeding and whether the judgment obtained in that proceeding was for possession only or if it included monetary damages and/or attorney’s fees.

2.                Plaintiff is requested to provide Statements of Account, to the extent they exist, for Units A and B.

3                 The statements set forth in Exhibit 6 total $75,827.37. It is unclear where the security deposit credit was applied.

4                 Matthew Sawyer (“Sawyer”) attests that upon regaining possession of Unit B, Plaintiff discovered that it was significantly damaged, such that Plaintiff was forced to engage in a 7-month restoration process. Sawyer is requested to provide the court with details regarding the extent of the damage and to attach invoices from any and all contractors.

5                 Attorney’s fees are to be calculated pursuant to Local Rule 3.214.