On 04/14/2010 JOHNSON, WILLIAM LEWIS filed a Property - Residential Eviction lawsuit against MCMANIS, KELLY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is LAWRENCE H. CHO. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.
Disposed - Other Disposed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Santa Monica Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
LAWRENCE H. CHO
JOHNSON WILLIAM LEWIS
DENNIS P. BLOCK AND ASSOCIATES - DENNIS P. BLOCK ESQ
Attorney at DENNIS P. BLOCK AND ASSOCIATES
Court documents are not available for this case.
* EFFECTIVE 05/20/2013Read MoreRead Less
* CASE REASSIGNED TO THE SANTA MONICA COURTHOUSERead MoreRead Less
* CASE RENUMBERED FROM SM 10U01281 TO SM 10R01281Read MoreRead Less
APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF POSSESSION FILED. DAILY RENTAL VALUE OF PROPERTY, $ 113.33 PER DAY.Read MoreRead Less
WRIT OF POSSESSION ISSUED TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY. RECEIPT # SM507623048 . READY FOR P/U BY COUNTRYWIDE PROCESS (ROOM 102)Read MoreRead Less
CAUSE CALLED AT 08:30A M, IN DEPT. WES , HON. LAWRENCE H. CHO PRESIDING FOR COURT TRIAL. PLAINTIFF(S) APPEARING BY HASTI RAHSEPAR, ESQ. . DEFENDANT(S) APPEARING IN PRO PER .Read MoreRead Less
COURT ORDERS JUDGMENT ENTERED AS FOLLOWS :Read MoreRead Less
JUDGMENT ENTERED AS A FINAL DISPOSITION ON 05/26/10 , FOR (JOHNSON, WILLIAM LEWIS) , AGAINST (MCMANIS, KELLY) , (FLORES, RAMON) , PAST DUE RENT $ 7000.00 , DAILY DAMAGES $ 2946.58 , ATTORNEY FEES $ 500.00 , COSTS $ 285.00 . TOTAL $ 10,731.58 , AND FOR RESTITUTION OF PREMISES LOCATED AT 2618 PACIFIC AVE., VENICE, CA 90291 , AND THIS JUDGMENT OF POSSESSION APPLIES TO ANY AND ALL UNNAMED OCCUPANTS OF THE PREMISES PURSUANT TO C.C.P. 415.46.Read MoreRead Less
CLERK'S NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT & NOTICE RE: EXHIBITS/ DEPOSITION ISSUED. CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FILED .Read MoreRead Less
CASE FILE RETURNED TO CIVIL DEPARTMENT FROM COURTROOM.Read MoreRead Less
ANSWER FILED OF (MCMANIS, KELLY) . RECEIPT # SM500645007 .Read MoreRead Less
REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS FILED BY (MCMANIS, KELLY) .Read MoreRead Less
REQUEST AND ORDER FOR WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS AS TO (MCMANIS, KELLY) RECEIVED AND FORWARDED TO DEPT. WES FOR CONSIDERATION.Read MoreRead Less
ORDER SETTING HEARING DATE ON REQUEST(S) TO WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS OF (FLORES, RAMON) SIGNED AND FILED. MATTER SET FOR 04/30/10 AT 08:30A M, IN DEPT. WES . THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS REGARDING ELIBILITY WILL BE ABOUT: RENT 3400/MONTH BUT DEFENDANT CLAIMS $0 INCOMERead MoreRead Less
RECEIVED FEES FROM (MCMANIS, KELLY) IN THE SUM OF $ 205.00 FOR ANSWER FEE . RECEIPT # SM500645007 .Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER FILING MAILED TO RESPECTIVE PARTIES/COUNSEL. CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED.Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT ON FILE. CASE IS ASSIGNED TO DEPT. WES OF HONORABLE LAWRENCE H. CHO .Read MoreRead Less
UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT FILED. RN SM507623007.Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONS ISSUED.Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONS FILED.Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: 10R01281 Hearing Date: October 22, 2020 Dept: K
CASE NAME: WILLIAM LEWIS JOHNSON v. KELLY McMANIS, et al
CASE NUMBER: 10R01281
COMPLAINT FILED: 4/14/10
HEARING DATE: 10/22/20
TRIAL DATE: 5/26/10
MOTION: Defendant McManis Motion for Reconsideration
BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff landlord filed this unlawful detainer action against tenant Defendants McManis and Ramon Flores for failing to pay 3 months back rent. Both Defendants answered, but only Defendant Flores appeared and proceeded to trial on 5/26/10. Movant/Defendant McManis failed to appear and was tried in absentia. Judgement was rendered for Plaintiff against both Defendants including damages of $10,731.58 against Movant McManis.
Ten years later, on March 13, 2020, Plaintiff sought and was granted a renewal of his Judgment as there were still unpaid damages outstanding. Movant McManis filed her Motion to Vacate Renewal of Judgment, claiming that she had vacated the premises prior to trial and that therefore no judgment should have issued against her. On 8/17/20, this Court held a hearing on this motion and DENIED it. Movant now brings this Motion of Reconsideration under CCP §1008.
Plaintiff argues that this motion is procedurally defective in that Defendants’ Declarations submitted fail to meet the requisite facts under CCP 1008(b), specifically which judge made which prior order and what new facts support the motion. This Court finds that the Declarations are deficient in these manners, but finds no prejudice since the required information was contained in Defendant’s briefs rather than in her Declarations.
In addition, Plaintiff also asserts that the new evidence submitted, the original lease agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendants executed over 10 years ago is not “new.” Again, this Court agrees that the now proffered Exhibit is not new and Defendant has not shown why this Exhibit was not available at the initial hearing of Defendant’s motion to vacate. However, given that Plaintiff argued extensively at the motion that Movant was the sole signator to the lease, where the “new” Exhibit directly contradicts that by showing that both Defendants were signatories, this Court will overlook the procedural deficiency and consider the Exhibit.
As such, the motion to deny on procedural grounds is DENIED.
Defendant correctly argues that one of the factual bases that Plaintiff relied heavily upon at oral argument in this matter was the assertion that co-Defendant Flores was not a signatory on the lease agreement and merely a guest of Defendant McManis. From that apparently now erroneous assertion, Plaintiff agued that Defendant McManis had not delivered possession to the Plaintiff despite the fact that she herself had vacated some time before. Defendant McManis now argues that since Defendant Flores as on the lease, then her vacating of the premises relieved her of any obligations under unlawful detainer. She cites Markham v. Fralick (1934) 2 Cal.2d. 221, 225 for the general proposition that a tenant cannot be liable for unlawful detainer if they have surrendered possession. Plaintiff does not address this argument in its opposition.
While generally speaking possession must still be in issue for an unlawful detainer to proceed, this Court finds Markham to be inapplicable here. In that case, the tenants had sublet the premises but vacated it themselves and gave notice of such to the landlord. The landlord served the tenants with a notice to quit but did not serve the subtenants, choosing to accept the subtenants as new tenants. Given this circumstance, the Supreme Court held it unfair to seek unlawful detainer against the original tenants on the basis of their having subtenants that the landlord had no objection to. Id. at 222-225. This scenario is completely inapposite to the facts in the case at bar, where Plaintiff did not accept the remaining co-Defendant Flores as their tenant and indeed proceeded to trial against Flores in the unlawful detainer action.
Moreover, the “new” fact that Flores was a co-tenant of Defendant McManis does not change the Judgment of this Court. The fact that they were co-tenants meant that they were both responsible for the payment of the monthly rent and that failure to remit the monthly obligation made them both liable. While it is undisputed that Defendant McManis did move out of the premises, it is also undisputed that neither her co-tenant Flores or her tendered the rent pursuant to the lease. It is also undisputed that even though Defendant McManis moved out, possession had not been restored to Plaintiff as co-tenant Flores remained without paying rent.
As such, this Court finds that the “new” Exhibit does not persuade this Court to vacate the Renewal Judgment as it would have had no effect on Defendant’s initial motion to vacate renewal judgment. Motion DENIED. Plaintiff to notice.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases