Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV01199, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV01199    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On November 30, 2022, plaintiff Universal Shopping Plaza (“Plaintiff”) filed this unlawful detainer action against defendant Vege Paradise Restaurant Inc. (“Defendant”) concerning the commercial real property located at 140 West Valley Blvd. #222, San Gabriel, California 91776 (“Premises”).  A trial date is not yet set.  Plaintiff seeks an order granting summary judgment on the unlawful detainer action or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of Defendant’s defenses.  The motion is unopposed. 

II.          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.)

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment must show that there is no defense to any of the asserted causes of action and does so by proving each element of the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (a)(1), (p)(1).)

III.        DISCUSSION

The statutes at issue are CCP §§ 1161(2), 1161.1:  A tenant of real property for a term less than life is guilty of unlawful detainer when he or she continues in possession, in person or by subtenant, without the permission of his or her landlord, or the successor in estate of his or her landlord, if applicable, after default in the payment of rent, pursuant to the lease or agreement under which the property is held, and three days’ notice, in writing, requiring its payment. 

The notice must state the amount which is due, the name, telephone number, and address of the person to whom the rent payment shall be made, and, if payment may be made personally, the usual days and hours that person will be available to receive the payment (provided that, if the address does not allow for personal delivery, then it shall be conclusively presumed that upon the mailing of any rent or notice to the owner by the tenant to the name and address provided, the notice or rent is deemed received by the owner on the date posted, if the tenant can show proof of mailing to the name and address provided by the owner), or the number of an account in a financial institution into which the rental payment may be made, and the name and street address of the institution (provided that the institution is located within five miles of the rental property), or if an electronic funds transfer procedure has been previously established, that payment may be made pursuant to that procedure, or possession of the property, shall have been served upon him or her and if there is a subtenant in actual occupation of the premises, also upon the subtenant.  The notice may be served at any time within one year after the rent becomes due. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden to establish unlawful detainer by Defendant, and Defendant has not provided any arguments in opposition.

Here, Plaintiff has established that it has standing to bring this unlawful detainer action as the real party in interest since it claims it is the owner and landlord of the Premises, and Defendant admits it entered into the Lease with Plaintiff for the Premises.  (Chiang Decl. ¶ 4; Truong Decl, Exhs. 3&7, RFA Nos. 2, 27.)  Plaintiff also shows that the terms of the Lease required rent to be paid on the first of each month.  (Chiang Decl. ¶5, Ex. 1; Truong Decl., Exs. 3 & 7, RFA Nos. 2, 27.) 

Plaintiff also properly served the notice under CCP section 1162 and the terms of the Lease because it served the notice on October 5, 2022, demanding payment within three days or, in the alternative, surrender the Premises.  (Jiang Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.)  Plaintiff shows that Defendant failed to tender payment in the amount stated in the notice or an amount which Defendant had reasonably estimated to be due, since Defendant tendered no payment at all.  (Chiang Decl. ¶15, Exh. 3; Truong Decl., Exhs. 3, 7, RFA Nos. 14-21; Truong Decl., Exhs. 1&5, FROG Nos. 76.2, 79.1.)

Finally, Plaintiff provides sufficient evidence to show that Defendant owed rent in the amounts between $89,076.14 and $133,614.20 for June through October 2022.  (Chiang, ¶12, Ex. 3.)  A ledger showing the calculation of rent due by Defendant supports the sum demanded on the Notice is within the permissible range of CCP §1161.1.  (Chiang Decl. ¶¶ 12-13, Exhs. 2-3.)  Defendant also admits that it did not pay rent from June through October 2022. (Truong, Exs. 3 & 7, RFA Nos. 14-19; Truong, Exs. 1 & 5, FROG No. 71.4.)  Plaintiff’s evidence of the additional rent charges, late fees, and other fees are also supported with evidence, which is not disputed by Defendant.  Plaintiff establishes that Defendant failed to vacate the Premises by the time the Notice expired and still remains in possession as of the date of filing this instant motion.  Thus, the Court finds that there is no triable issue of material fact as to Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action since the undisputed facts show that Plaintiff satisfies all the required elements. 

IV.         CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at alhdept3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.