This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/24/2020 at 09:14:51 (UTC).

SHIPPEE'S PROPERTIES, LLC VS YAKOV SHLIMOVICH

Case Summary

On 01/17/2020 SHIPPEE'S PROPERTIES, LLC filed a Property - Commercial Eviction lawsuit against YAKOV SHLIMOVICH. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GAIL KILLEFER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0632

  • Filing Date:

    01/17/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Commercial Eviction

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

GAIL KILLEFER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SHIPPEE'S PROPERTIES LLC

Defendant

SHLIMOVICH YAKOV DBA SMART PAWN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

FLOYD HARRY E.

Defendant Attorneys

ECOFF LAWRENCE C.

KAY KEVIN T.

 

Court Documents

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition OF PLAINTIFF SHIPPEE'S PROPERTIES, LLC TO DEFENDANT YAKOV SHLIMOVICH'S MOTION TO COMPEL KATHRYN FISCHER TO APPEAR AT TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTH

11/6/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition OF PLAINTIFF SHIPPEE'S PROPERTIES, LLC TO DEFENDANT YAKOV SHLIMOVICH'S MOTION TO COMPEL KATHRYN FISCHER TO APPEAR AT TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTH

Minute Order - Minute Order (Final Status Conference)

10/30/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Final Status Conference)

Statement of the Case - Statement of the Case

10/23/2020: Statement of the Case - Statement of the Case

Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

10/9/2020: Motion for Summary Judgment - Motion for Summary Judgment

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Of Kevin T. Kay In Support Of Defendant Yakov Shlimovich's Motion For Summary Judgment

10/9/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Of Kevin T. Kay In Support Of Defendant Yakov Shlimovich's Motion For Summary Judgment

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Of Ilya Vradiy In Support Of Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment

10/9/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration Of Ilya Vradiy In Support Of Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order) of 06/29/2020

6/29/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order) of 06/29/2020

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice - Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

6/29/2020: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice - Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order/Hearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Verified ...)

6/16/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order/Hearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Verified ...)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order/Hearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Verified ...) of 06/16/2020

6/16/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order/Hearing on Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Verified ...) of 06/16/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)

6/19/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Nunc Pro Tunc Order)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

4/1/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [Minute Order (Court Order)]

4/2/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [Minute Order (Court Order)]

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

1/17/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Notice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) - Notice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) (YAKOV SHLIMOVICH)

1/22/2020: Notice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) - Notice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) (YAKOV SHLIMOVICH)

Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

1/27/2020: Motion to Strike (not initial pleading) - Motion to Strike (not initial pleading)

Reply (name extension) - Reply Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint

3/11/2020: Reply (name extension) - Reply Motion to Strike First Amended Complaint

Notice of Related Case - Notice of Related Case

3/12/2020: Notice of Related Case - Notice of Related Case

43 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/10/2020
  • Hearing12/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 78 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Jury Trial , 3-5 day estimate,)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • DocketJury Trial , 3-5 day estimate, scheduled for 11/09/2020 at 09:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 78 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court on 11/09/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) scheduled for 12/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 78

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2020
  • DocketOpposition OF PLAINTIFF SHIPPEE'S PROPERTIES, LLC TO DEFENDANT YAKOV SHLIMOVICH'S MOTION TO COMPEL KATHRYN FISCHER TO APPEAR AT TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES AND DECLARATION OF KATHRYN FISCHER IN SUPPORT THEREOF; Filed by: SHIPPEE'S PROPERTIES, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Final Status Conference)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2020
  • DocketFinal Status Conference scheduled for 10/30/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 78 updated: Result Date to 10/30/2020; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2020
  • DocketFinal Status Conference scheduled for 10/30/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 78

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Final Status Conference)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Final Status Conference scheduled for 10/26/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 78 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 10/30/2020 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
82 More Docket Entries
  • 01/27/2020
  • DocketMotion to Strike (not initial pleading); Filed by: YAKOV SHLIMOVICH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2020
  • DocketDemurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10); Filed by: YAKOV SHLIMOVICH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Unlawful Detainer mailed 01/22/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/27/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Civil Clerk's Office

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Gail Killefer in Department 97 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: SHIPPEE'S PROPERTIES, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: YAKOV SHLIMOVICH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: SHIPPEE'S PROPERTIES, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: YAKOV SHLIMOVICH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: SHIPPEE'S PROPERTIES, LLC (Plaintiff); As to: YAKOV SHLIMOVICH (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/17/2020
  • DocketProperty Owner/Landlord Only Hearing Notice; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STUD00632    Hearing Date: October 16, 2020    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

SHIPPEE’S PROPERTIES, LLC;

Plaintiffs,

vs.

YAKOV SHLIMOVICH, et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.:

20STUD00632

Related Case:

20STCV02244

Hearing Date:

October 16, 2020

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

Defendant YAKOV SHLIMOVICH’S MOTION for summary judgment

Defendant Yakov Shlimovich’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Factual Background

This is an unlawful detainer action. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges as follows. Plaintiff Shippee’s Properties, LLC (“Shippee”) leased property to Defendant Yakov Shlimovich (“Shlimovich”) for a ten-year lease term at $2,500 per month. (FAC ¶ 6.) Shippee demands possession of the property because the fixed-term lease expired on January 1, 2020. (FAC ¶ 9.)

procedural history

Shippee filed the Complaint on January 17, 2020, alleging a single cause of action for unlawful detainer.

On January 29, 2020, Shippee filed the FAC, alleging the same cause of action for unlawful detainer.

On March 12, 2020, Shlimovich filed a Notice of Related Case (No. 20STCV02244).

On July 28, 2020, this Court denied Shlimovich’s Motion to Strike.

On October 9, 2020, Shlimovich filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment.

No opposition has been filed.

Discussion

  1. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

A motion for summary judgment may be made in an unlawful detainer action at any time after the answer is filed on giving five days' notice. Summary judgment must be granted or denied on the same basis as a motion for summary judgment in any other civil action under CCP § 437c. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1170.7.)

In an unlawful detainer action, the requirements differ from non-unlawful detainer summary judgment motions as follows: a separate statement need not be filed in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment in an unlawful detainer action (CCP § 437c(b), (s)), the provisions of CCP § 437c(a)–(b) concerning the time for making and hearing the motion (see §§ 13.12- 13.16) do not apply to unlawful detainer actions (CCP § 437c(s)), and the provisions for summary judgment set forth in CCP § 437c do not extend the period for trial in an unlawful detainer action specified in CCP § 1170.5 (CCP § 437c(r)).

A party may move for summary judgment “if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (a).) “[I]f all the evidence submitted, and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” the moving party will be entitled to summary judgment. (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

The moving party bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact, and if he does so, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850; accord Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

Neither a moving or responding party may rely on the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings. A moving party must submit specific admissible evidence showing that the responding party cannot establish at least one element of his, her or its cause of action or defense. The responding party, to defeat the motion, must submit specific admissible evidence showing that a triable issue of material fact does exist as to that element of the cause of action or defense. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

Further, absent compliance with Code of Civil Procedure §437c(t). “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(f)(1).)

  1. Unlawful Detainer – Facts of the Case and Argument

The Complaint alleges that Defendant Shlimovich agreed to rent the Premises for 10-year tenancy, payable monthly at $2,500 per month, in a written agreement. (Compl. p. 1.) The fixed-term lease expired on January 1, 2020, but Shlimovich has remained at the Premises. (Compl. at p. 3.)

In the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, Shlimovich argues that the written agreement for the Premises (the “Lease”) includes an option to extend the lease for another 10-year period (the “Option”) at Defendants’ discretion with 90 days’ written notice before the expiration of the lease. (Motion at p. 4.) Shlimovich argues that he timely exercised the option, sent notice, and paid rent for January and February 2020. (Motion at p. 4.)

Shlimovich presents evidence of the Option in the Lease, which is found at paragraph 1(B). (Vradiy Decl. Exh. A.) The Lease is between the Shippee Family Trust, as Landlord, and “Smart Pawn (Yakov Shlimovich)” as Tenant, effective January 1, 2010. (Vradiv Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 1.) Paragraph 1(B) of the Lease states: “Tenant may renew the Lease for one extended terms of 10 years [Renewal Term]. Tenant shall exercise such renewal option, if at all, by giving written notice to Landlord not less than ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the initial Term. The renewal term shall be at the rental set forth below and other upon the same covenants, conditions and provisions as provided in this Lease.” (Vradiv Decl., Exh. A., p. 1.) Section 21 of the Lease specifies the requirements for Notice: “Any notice required or permitted under this Lease shall be deemed sufficiently given or served when hand-delivered, sent by mail, or sent by facsimile transmission to: […] Landlord at The Shippee Trust c/o Suzanne Smith, Address: 35395 Billie Ann Road, Wildomar, CA 92595, Phone: 443-540-007 or 951-235-3009. […] Landlord and Tenant shall each have the right from time to time to change the place notice is to be given under this paragraph by written notice thereof to the other party.” (Vradiv Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 21.)

Shlimovich presents evidence that he sent his notice of exercising the Option at the end of August/beginning of September 2019 by mail pursuant to the Lease. (Motion at p. 4.) Shlimovich submits a copy of the letter sent to Shippee expressing written notice of intent to exercise the Option. (Vradiv Decl., Exh. B.) The letter is dated August 28, 2019 and states that “we would like to exercise the Renewal Term Option as stated in our lease (1.B.) dated 12.14.2009. We will be sending the rent checks in December as usual for the new amount of $2750.00 per month.” (Vradiv Decl., Exh. B.) The letter does not include a proof of service or other evidence of mailing. Ilya Vradiv, an authorized agent for Smart Pawn (Shlimovich’s dba), declares that he mailed the written notice on September 2, 2019 to 35395 Billie Ann Road, Wildomar, CA, 92595. (Vradiv Decl., ¶ 4.)

Shlimovich presents evidence that in the Requests of Admission served on Shippee, they admitted that the address of the landlord as provided in the lease for notice is 35395 Billie Ann Road, Wildomar, CA 92595, admitted that the “the place where written notice is to be given to the Landlord under paragraph 21 of the Lease can only be changed by written notice to the Tenant.” (Kay Decl., Exh. 1.)

Shlimovich, however, also presents evidence that Shippee answered in response to the Form Interrogatories that they “provided written notice to Defendant of two (2) changes of address[.]” (Kay Decl. Exh. 2, ¶ 21.) Further, Shippee responded that they have “no evidence to show that Defendant did timely mail notice of its intention to extend the term of the Lease.” (Kay Decl., Exh. 2, ¶ 22.)

Shlimovich is aware of the two changes of address and, in fact, includes copies of the two letters. (Vradiv Decl., Exhs. C-D.) However, Shlimovich argues that the letters indicate a change of address only for “rental payments and correspondence” and not for “Notice” for purposes of paragraph 21 of the Lease.” (Motion at p. 9.)

Thus, Shlimovich’s prime argument against the unlawful detainer is that he properly exercised his Notice of the Option as specified in the Lease agreement. He contends that he mailed the Notice in accordance with the Notice requirements of the Lease because the Shippee did not properly give notice of a change of address for Notice of the Option.

Based on this evidence, Shlimovich has not presented sufficient evidence as to the lack of a triable issue of fact on the issues of whether (1) Shippee properly gave notice of change of address, and (2) Shlimovich properly gave notice to the correct address of exercising the Option.

The language in the Lease is not particular in terms of specific language that must be used to change the address used for notice: “Landlord and Tenant shall each have the right from time to time to change the place notice is to be given under this paragraph by written notice thereof to the other party.” (Vradiv Decl., Exh. A, ¶ 21.) Here, there is evidence that Shlimovich received two letters from Shippee regarding changes of address: (1) the first was sent on December 5, 2013, which stated “Please note change of address for rental payments and correspondence is as follows […]”; and (2) the second was sent on December 7, 2017, which stated “2. As of January 1, 2018 please make all rental payments out to Shippee’s Properties, LLC. 3. Please mail all checks to [address.]” (Vradiv Decl. Exhs. C-D.) The previous address in the lease for Plaintiff’s Notice under paragraph 21, is the same address that was listed in the lease for the payment address in paragraph 2. (Vradiv Decl., Exh. A.)

Because the Lease does not specify how “written notice” is to be given and/worded for a change of address for purposes of either paragraph 21 or paragraph 2, there is a dispute of material fact as to whether Shippee gave sufficient notice of a changed address for purposes of paragraph 21 in the 12/5/2013 and/or 12/7/2017 letters. There is accordingly, a dispute of material fact as to whether Shlimovich’s notice of intent, mailed to the address listed in the lease but not to the addresses given the 12/5/13 or 12/7/17 letters, gave proper notice in accordance with the Lease.

Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED

DATED: October 16, 2020 ________________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: 20STUD00632    Hearing Date: July 27, 2020    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 78

SHIPPEE’S PROPERTIES, LLC;

Plaintiffs,

vs.

YAKOV SHLIMOVICH, et al.;

Defendants.

Case No.:

20STUD00632

Related Case:

20STCV02244

Hearing Date:

July 28, 2020

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:

Defendant YAKOV SHLIMOVICH’S MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant Yakov Shlimovich’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

Factual Background

This is an unlawful detainer action. The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges as follows. Plaintiff Shippee’s Properties, LLC (“Shippee”) leased property to Defendant Yakov Shlimovich (“Shlimovich”) for a ten-year lease term at $2,500 per month. (FAC ¶ 6.) Shippee demands possession of the property because the fixed-term lease expired on January 1, 2020. (FAC ¶ 9.)

procedural history

Shippee filed the Complaint on January 17, 2020, alleging a single cause of action for unlawful detainer.

On January 27, 2020, Shlimovich filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike.

On January 29, 2020, Shippee filed the FAC, alleging the same cause of action for unlawful detainer.

On February 11, 2020, Shlimovich filed the instant Motion to Strike.

On March 5, 2020, Shippee filed an Opposition.

On March 11, 2020, Shlimovich filed a Reply.

On March 12, 2020, Shlimovich filed a Notice of Related Case (No. 20STCV02244).

Discussion

  1. MOTION TO STRIKE

Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435(b)(1)). The notice of motion to strike a portion of a pleading shall quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count or defense. (California Rules of Court Rule 3.1322.)¿ 

The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or form any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437(a)). The court then may strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading and strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend. (Perlman v. Municipal Court¿(1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 568, 575.)¿ 

Code of Civil Procedure §1166(a) requires that a complaint in an unlawful detainer action be verified. Code of Civil Procedure §446 identifies the person or persons who may sign verifications on behalf of corporations and the substantive requirements for such verifications. Shippee claims that the verification and the FAC must be stricken under CCP §§ 446(a) because §446(a) requires the verification to be made by an officer of the corporation but the verification here was signed by Suzanne Smith, who identifies herself as an ‘agent” of plaintiff. Shippee also claims that the verification and FAC must be stricken because the verification was made on “information and belief.” Finally, Shippee claims that the fact plaintiff produced a person other than the Ms. Smith for a person most knowledgeable deposition proves that verification was not made by the right person and is invalid.

The Court finds that each of these contentions is frivolous and made solely for purposes of delay. Since at least 1906 it has been the law that persons other than an officer of a corporation, such as a manager, may sign a verification on behalf of corporation. (Stockton Lumber Co. v. Blodgett (1906) 3 Cal. App. 94.) Ms. Smith has stated under oath that she is a managing agent of plaintiff in her verification to the original complaint. Section 446 explicitly authorizes verifications to be made in part “on information belief” exactly as Ms. Smith’s verification was here. The contention that designating an individual other than Ms. Smith for a person most knowledgeable deposition proves that the verification was invalid is simply so baseless that it defies discussion.

Accordingly, Defendant Yakov Shlimovich’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

DATED: July 28, 2020 ________________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper

Judge of the Superior Court