Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23PDUD02994, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PDUD02994    Hearing Date: February 19, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

This unlawful detainer action relates to the property located at 631 Caleb Street, Glendale, CA 91202 (“the Property”). On January 10, 2025, plaintiff Hrayr Brian Der Vartanian (“Plaintiff”) filed this motion to vacate the judgment, dated August 27, 2024, imposing $30,450 in sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and 128.7. “The court . . . may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d).)

Defendant Jaydon Douglas Paull (“Defendant”) filed an opposition brief on February 5, 2025. Plaintiff filed a reply brief on February 13, 2025.

Plaintiff argues that the judgment should be vacated because Defendant’s attorney, William Bowen, has been a subtenant of the Property according to records subpoenaed from the City of Glendale Department of Water and Power (“DWP”). Plaintiff argues that since Mr. Bowen was occupying the Property, he was actually acting on behalf of himself (not Defendant) and therefore not entitled to attorney fees. (Motion, p. 2.)

Plaintiff attaches records from DWP showing an executed form lease identifying Mr. Bowen as a tenant and Defendant as the landlord of the Property. (Motion, Subp. Doc., pp. 009-022.) Plaintiff also attaches call logs for an account opened under the name of “Tyler Schrage” beginning on March 24, 2020. (Id., p. 023.) These logs show that on May 2, 2023, “William Bowen” called to state that he purchased the Property and that the current tenant “is moving out [tomorrow].” (Motion, Subp. Doc., p. 031.) He was advised to “email proof of ownership and [move-out statement] for [tenant]” and once those documents were provided, he could call back to request new services. (Ibid.) “William Bowen” called again on May 8, 2023, reportedly stating that he recently moved in on April 15 and will be responsible for utility bills moving forward. (Id., Subp. Doc., p. 032.) Notes for another call log entry include an email from DWP to “WilliamBowenBills@gmail.com” requesting a copy of the “completed and signed rental agreement” before a new service request could be processed. (Id., p. 033.) The lease agreement was apparently sent and on May 9, 2023, DWP wrote back to “WilliamBowenBills@gmail.com” stating that “the balance on the account must be paid prior to restoral or establishing a new account.” (Id., p. 037.)

In between these calls by “William Bowen”, there were also calls from “Tyler Schrage” regarding the status of financial assistance with payments on the account. There are also notes that the account was turned off on May 9, 2024, for nonpayment and that on July 5, 2023, “William Bowen” insisted he recently moved in and was informed that the balance would need to be paid before service could be provided. (Id., p. 038.) The DWP agent reported that he checked with the property owner (Plaintiff) who denied having any new tenants and “William Bowen” threatened litigation. (Id., p. 039.)

Then, on July 5, 2023, “Jaydon Paull” called to set up service but was informed that no new services would be provided until the balance is paid. The caller stated that he has been living there since 2020 but has not been responsible for the “billings.” (Id., p. 041.) On March 29, 2024, “Zachary Jaydon” called DWP and the agent, identified as “vworley” noted in the log entry that the caller sounded exactly like “Tyler Schrage” with whom he spoke on several occasions last year. (Id., p. 043.)

In response to Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant declares, under penalty of perjury, that he had been attempting to “secure utility service” and asked Mr. Bowen if he “would be willing to put the ownership of the utility account in his name.” (Paull Decl., ¶¶ 53.) Defendant was informed by DWP that he needed to provide a lease; Defendant states that the DWP employee “suggested” that a sublease situation with Mr. Bowen (or any other third party) could be created. (Paull Decl., ¶. 54-56.) Defendant claims Mr. Bowen’s involvement would be nothing more than a formality and a “workaround of internal bureaucratic procedure” because he believed that DWP’s priority was to have someone who would “financially guarantee the account.” (Paull Decl., ¶¶ 58-59.) Defendant goes on and explains that he created a Gmail account and forged Mr. Bowen’s signature on a form lease agreement. (Paul Decl., ¶¶ 60-62.) The forged lease was never intended to create a contractual relationship and Defendant declares that Mr. Bowen never squatted or lived at the Property, nor has Mr. Bowen claimed possession of the Property, paid him rent, or lived at the Property. (Paul Decl., ¶¶ 63, 66, 73.)

Mr. Bowen also filed a declaration in support of Defendant’s opposition brief (even though it is captioned as being in support of an ex parte application). In the declaration, Mr. Bowen states that he does not and has never claimed possession of the Property, and has never had a lease or sublease with Defendant. (Bowen Decl., ¶¶ 41-44.) Although Mr. Bowen does not deny calling DWP in May and July of 2023, it appears that such calls were not made because Mr. Bowen was residing at the Property, but because Defendant was having difficulties with setting up utility services.

Given the sworn statements by both Mr. Bowen and Defendant that Mr. Bowen has never resided at, nor claimed a possessory right to, the Property, the Court concludes that Mr. Bowen is not now nor has ever been a party to this action directly, as evidenced by the pleadings, or indirectly. That is sufficient for the purposes of ruling on this motion.

That said, whether and how Mr. Bowen was involved in Defendant’s attempts to open an account with DWP may raise ethical issues implicating him as an advocate-witness in other proceedings, not before this Court, involving the same property and parties. However, to probe further into the matter in this action, in the face of the sworn declaration by counsel and the fact that he is not a named party and claims no rights as an unnamed occupant, would require this Court to invade the attorney-client privilege as to what, if anything, Defendant was advised by counsel to do with respect to any representations to the DWP. In any event, such inquiry is unnecessary given the sworn statements by both Mr. Bowen and Defendant that Mr. Bowen has never resided at nor claimed a possessory right to the Property.

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the judgment is DENIED.

Dated this 19th day of February 2025

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.