Ronald L. Wolfe & Associates, Inc vs Lillianna Marie Guerrero
Case No: 19CV01050
Hearing Date: Fri Apr 05, 2019 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion for Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling: Defendant Lillianna Marie Guerrero may oppose plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in writing on or before the court day before the hearing or orally at the hearing. CRC 3.1351(b), (c). If defendant fails to do so or fails to sustain her burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact, the court will grant plaintiff Ronald L. Wolfe & Associates, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment and enter judgment for plaintiff for possession of the premises located at 355 Northgate Drive, Unit A, Goleta, California, and damages of $3,200.

Background: Plaintiff Ronald L. Wolfe & Associates Inc., filed this unlawful detainer action (UDA) against defendant Lillianna Marie Guerrero. On March 12, 2019, the court entered the default of all unnamed occupants of the premises.

Motion: On March 25, plaintiff filed and served by mail its motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff seeks rent due and costs.

In an UDA, a party may move for summary judgment on five days notice and the motion shall be granted or denied on the same basis as a motion under CCP § 437c. CCP § 1170.7. Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no triable issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. CCP § 437c(c). “The party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 (2001). “[A] plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion that ‘each element of’ the ‘cause of action’ in question has been ‘proved,’ and hence that ‘there is no defense’ thereto. [CCP § 437c(p)(1)].” Id. Plaintiff’s initial burden of proof in moving for summary judgment, however, does not include disproving any affirmative defenses asserted by defendants. When a plaintiff meets its burden of proving each element of its cause of action, “the burden shifts to the defendant ‘to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.’” Oldcastle Precast, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 170 Cal.App.4th 554, 564-565 (2009).

1. Facts: Plaintiff is the property manager of 355 Northgate Drive, Unit A, in Goleta, and is authorized by the property owner to act as the real party in interest in this UDA. [Karen Jewell Declaration (“Jewell Dec.”) ¶2] The property owners entered into an oral rental agreement with defendant for the premises for $800/month. [Jewell Dec. ¶4]

Plaintiff owes rent for December 1, 2018, through February 28, 2019, in the amount of $2,400. [Jewell Dec. ¶6] On February 11, 2019, plaintiffs served on defendant a notice in writing requiring her to pay rent or deliver possession of the premises within three days after service of the notice, and stating plaintiff’s election to declare a forfeiture of the tenancy. [Jewell Dec. ¶9, Exhibit B] More than three days passed after the service of the notice and defendant failed to pay rent or to deliver possession of the premises. [Jewell Dec. ¶10] The reasonable rental value of the premises is the sum of $26.67 per day and plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain damages by reason of defendant’s detention of the premises for every day past February 28, 2019, that defendant continues in possession. [Jewell Dec. ¶11]

2. Analysis: A tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer when it continues in possession, without the permission of its landlord, after default in the payment of rent pursuant to the lease or agreement under which the property is held, and three days’ notice to quit or pay rent. CCP § 1161(2). Judgment in unlawful detainer may include actual damages and rent due. CCP § 1174(b); Hudec v. Robertson, 210 Cal.App.3d 1156, 1163 (1989). The agreed rent is evidence of the rental value. Superior Motels, Inc. v. Rinn Motor Hotels, Inc., 195 Cal.App.3d 1032, 1069 (1987).

Plaintiff has sustained its burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact as to unlawful detainer, past due rent, and $26.67 per day until judgment. The motion states that plaintiff seeks judgment as prayed in the complaint. The past due rent as of termination of the tenancy was $2,400 and plaintiff seeks an additional $800 through the end of March 2019. The total judgment amount is $3,200. Plaintiff’s proposed order asks for costs totaling $370.65 but there is no evidence of those costs. The proper procedure is for plaintiff to file a memorandum of costs after judgment.

Defendant may oppose the motion in writing on or before the court day before the hearing or orally at the hearing. CRC 3.1351(b), (c). If defendant fails to do so or fails to sustain her burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact, the court will grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and enter judgment for plaintiff for possession of the premises located at 355 Northgate Drive, Unit A, Goleta, California, and damages of $3,200.