Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV01199, Date: 2023-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV01199    Hearing Date: March 14, 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.  Defendant filed an opposition brief on February 10, 2023.  Plaintiff filed a reply brief on March 7, 2023. 

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

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of unlawful detainer is moot because Defendant has undisputedly vacated the premises.  An action for an unlawful detainer is converted to a civil case for damages if possession is no longer at issue.  (Cal. Civ. Code, § 1952.3.)  “An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding; calendar precedence is given, and only the right to possession is in issue….To preserve the summary nature of these proceedings, the rule developed that ordinarily affirmative defenses may not be asserted.”  (Fish Construction Co. v. Moselle Coach Works, Inc. (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 654, 658 [citing Union Oil Co. v. Chandler (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 716, 721].)  “Only defenses which are directly relevant to possession may be considered.”  (Ibid.)  After the unlawful detainer has been converted to an ordinary civil action, “the lessee is entitled to have the matter continued or placed off calendar to enable him to prepare for trial so that he may assert appropriate defenses or seek affirmative relief that would not have been available in an unlawful detainer proceeding.”  (Id. at p. 660.)  Because this is no longer an unlawful detainer proceeding, the procedural requirements regarding notice and a separate statement articulated in CCP 437c apply instead of CRC 3.1351. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court takes the motion for summary judgment/adjudication off calendar.  Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the Complaint to allege a breach of contract claim.  An amended complaint must be filed within 10 days of the date of this order. 

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment/adjudication is taken off calendar.

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.

Dated this 14th  day of March 2023