This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/26/2022 at 15:02:27 (UTC).

CIRCA 1200, LLC VS KAMIL BOGUSKI

Case Summary

On 12/13/2021 CIRCA 1200, LLC filed an Other lawsuit against KAMIL BOGUSKI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is YOLANDA OROZCO. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5285

  • Filing Date:

    12/13/2021

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

YOLANDA OROZCO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CIRCA 1200 LLC

Defendant

BOGUSKI KAMIL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

CARDOSO TANIA KIM

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

4/22/2022: Notice - NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

Notice of Case Management Conference

12/15/2021: Notice of Case Management Conference

Proof of Service by Mail

12/22/2021: Proof of Service by Mail

Answer

12/22/2021: Answer

Proof of Personal Service

12/30/2021: Proof of Personal Service

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

12/30/2021: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Unknown - VERIFICATION BY LANDLORD REGARDING RENTAL ASSISTANCE

12/30/2021: Unknown - VERIFICATION BY LANDLORD REGARDING RENTAL ASSISTANCE

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

12/30/2021: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

1/10/2022: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Request/Counter-Request To Set Case For Trial

1/12/2022: Request/Counter-Request To Set Case For Trial

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

1/12/2022: Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

1/12/2022: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: REQUEST TO TO SET CASE FOR TRIAL) OF 01/21/2022

1/21/2022: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER RE: REQUEST TO TO SET CASE FOR TRIAL) OF 01/21/2022

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: REQUEST TO TO SET CASE FOR TRIAL)

1/21/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: REQUEST TO TO SET CASE FOR TRIAL)

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR A HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

2/1/2022: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR A HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ...)

2/4/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME ...)

Proof of Service by Mail

2/25/2022: Proof of Service by Mail

Notice of Ruling

2/25/2022: Notice of Ruling

19 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/22/2022
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Receipt of Proposed Judgment) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2022
  • DocketNotice (of Entry of Judgment); Filed by Circa 1200, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2022
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2022
  • Docketat 3:32 PM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2022
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 04/08/2022); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2022
  • DocketJudgment; Filed by Circa 1200, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2022
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 31, Yolanda Orozco, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
21 More Docket Entries
  • 12/22/2021
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Kamil Boguski (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2021
  • DocketNotice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) ((ALL OCCUPANTS)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2021
  • DocketNotice of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) ((Kamil Boguski)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Circa 1200, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Circa 1200, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2021
  • DocketNotice of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Unlawful Detainer (UD); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Circa 1200, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/13/2021
  • DocketSupplemental Cover Sheet and Allegations for Unlawful Detainer - Complaint; Filed by Circa 1200, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******5285 Hearing Date: March 15, 2022 Dept: 31

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS GRANTED

Background

This is an unlawful detainer action arising out of the premises located at 200 S. Figueroa Street #W3202, Los Angeles, California 90015 (the “Premises”). Plaintiff Circa 1200, LLC (“Plaintiff”) is the landlord of the Premises and Defendant Kamil Boguski (“Defendant”) is the tenant.

On December 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant unlawful detainer action against Defendant and Does 1 through 10.

On December 22, 2021, Defendant filed an answer.

Plaintiff now moves for judgment on the pleadings.

On February 4, 2022, the Court advanced the hearing date for the instant motion to March 15, 2022.

There is no filed opposition.

Legal Standard

A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer has expired. Except as provided by statute, the rules governing demurrers apply. (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.)

Like a general demurrer, “ordinarily, a [motion for judgment on the pleadings] does not lie as to a portion of a cause of action, and if any part of a cause of action is properly pleaded, the [motion] will be overruled.” (Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.) In considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, courts consider whether properly pled factual allegations—assumed to be true and liberally construed—are sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Stone Street Capital, LLC v. Cal. State Lottery Com’n (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 109, 116.)

Discussion

As alleged in the complaint, Plaintiff leased the Premises to Defendant pursuant to a written agreement, whereby Defendant was to pay $3,2380.00 in monthly rent until May 14, 2021, when rent increased to $3,315.00. (Complaint 6, Ex. 1.) However, Defendant failed to pay rent for months of October 2020 through September 2021 in the total amount due of $39,780.00. (Id. 12.) After serving a 15-day notice to pay rent or quit, Defendant did not tender the rent or otherwise apply for the Housing is Key Program and Plaintiff commenced this unlawful detainer action. In response, Defendant filed a verified answer that does not deny any allegation of the complaint and does not assert a single defense. (Answer 2-3.) The answer merely states that he vacated the Premises on December 22, 2021. (Id. 4.)

Plaintiff, using a form complaint, has stated sufficient facts to maintain an unlawful detainer action, i.e., the parties had a rental agreement, Defendant breached that agreement by failing to pay, and Plaintiff complied with legal requirements for serving the underlying eviction notice before commencing this action. Defendant’s failure to file a substantive response to the allegations means the allegations are deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., 431.20, subd. (a) [“Every material allegation of the complaint or cross-complaint, not controverted by the answer, shall, for the purposes of the action, be taken as true.”].)

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s unopposed motion.

Because Defendant does not oppose, Defendant has not met his burden to justify leave to amend. The Court denies leave to amend.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED without leave to amend. Plaintiff shall submit a form of judgment.

Court sets an OSC re: Receipt of Proposed Judgment on April 22, 2022, at 9:00 am.

Plaintiff is to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All masking protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.



Case Number: *******5285 Hearing Date: March 14, 2022 Dept: 31

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS GRANTED

Background

This is an unlawful detainer action arising out of the premises located at 200 S. Figueroa Street #W3202, Los Angeles, California 90015 (the “Premises”). Plaintiff Circa 1200, LLC (“Plaintiff”) is the landlord of the Premises and Defendant Kamil Boguski (“Defendant”) is the tenant.

On December 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant unlawful detainer action against Defendant and Does 1 through 10.

On December 22, 2021, Defendant filed an answer.

Plaintiff now moves for judgment on the pleadings.

On February 4, 2022, the Court advanced the hearing date for the instant motion to March 15, 2022.

There is no filed opposition.

Legal Standard

A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer has expired. Except as provided by statute, the rules governing demurrers apply. (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.)

Like a general demurrer, “ordinarily, a [motion for judgment on the pleadings] does not lie as to a portion of a cause of action, and if any part of a cause of action is properly pleaded, the [motion] will be overruled.” (Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.) In considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, courts consider whether properly pled factual allegations—assumed to be true and liberally construed—are sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Stone Street Capital, LLC v. Cal. State Lottery Com’n (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 109, 116.)

Discussion

As alleged in the complaint, Plaintiff leased the Premises to Defendant pursuant to a written agreement, whereby Defendant was to pay $3,2380.00 in monthly rent until May 14, 2021, when rent increased to $3,315.00. (Complaint 6, Ex. 1.) However, Defendant failed to pay rent for months of October 2020 through September 2021 in the total amount due of $39,780.00. (Id. 12.) After serving a 15-day notice to pay rent or quit, Defendant did not tender the rent or otherwise apply for the Housing is Key Program and Plaintiff commenced this unlawful detainer action. In response, Defendant filed a verified answer that does not deny any allegation of the complaint and does not assert a single defense. (Answer 2-3.) The answer merely states that he vacated the Premises on December 22, 2021. (Id. 4.)

Plaintiff, using a form complaint, has stated sufficient facts to maintain an unlawful detainer action, i.e., the parties had a rental agreement, Defendant breached that agreement by failing to pay, and Plaintiff complied with legal requirements for serving the underlying eviction notice before commencing this action. Defendant’s failure to file a substantive response to the allegations means the allegations are deemed admitted. (Code Civ. Proc., 431.20, subd. (a) [“Every material allegation of the complaint or cross-complaint, not controverted by the answer, shall, for the purposes of the action, be taken as true.”].)

Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s unopposed motion.

Because Defendant does not oppose, Defendant has not met his burden to justify leave to amend. The Court denies leave to amend.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED without leave to amend. Plaintiff shall submit a form of judgment.

Court sets an OSC re: Receipt of Proposed Judgment on April 22, 2022, at 9:00 am.

Plaintiff is to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All masking protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CIRCA 1200 LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer LAW OFFICES OF HOLLENBECK & CARDOSO, LLP - TANIA CARDOSO