This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/17/2022 at 02:34:33 (UTC).

COMMUNITY REBUILD PARTNERS VS. SAM CHANIN, ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/23/2017 COMMUNITY REBUILD PARTNERS filed a Property - Residential Eviction lawsuit against SAM CHANIN,. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Van Nuys Courthouse East located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ELIZABETH A. LIPPITT, DAVID J. COWAN, VIRGINIA KEENY and HUEY P. COTTON. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5136

  • Filing Date:

    01/23/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Property - Residential Eviction

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ELIZABETH A. LIPPITT

DAVID J. COWAN

VIRGINIA KEENY

HUEY P. COTTON

 

Party Details

Respondents, Plaintiffs and Appellants

COMMUNITY REBUILD PARTNERS LLC

COMMUNITY REBUILD ASSET HOLDINGS LLC

COMMUNITY REBUILD PARTNERS

CHANIN LIEBA

CHANIN SAM

Defendants, Appellants and Respondents

DOES 1-5

CHANIN LIEBA

CHANIN SAM

RENA KREITENBERG

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

COHEN BARUCH C

COHEN BARUCH C.

Defendant Attorneys

RILEY DENNIS PATRICK

ZELIG STEVEN

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling

10/8/2021: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Ruling

9/16/2021: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A DATE CERTAIN TO CONDUCT...)

7/19/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A DATE CERTAIN TO CONDUCT...)

Substitution of Attorney

9/1/2020: Substitution of Attorney

Order - ORDER ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT CREDITORS' EX-PARTE APPLICATION

7/19/2021: Order - ORDER ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT CREDITORS' EX-PARTE APPLICATION

Brief - BRIEF JUDGMENT CREDITORS' BRIEF - MOTION TO INCREASE UNDERTAKING RENTAL VALUE; DECLARATIONS OF BARUCH COHEN AND GREGORY HEBNER IN SUPPORT THEREOF

9/3/2020: Brief - BRIEF JUDGMENT CREDITORS' BRIEF - MOTION TO INCREASE UNDERTAKING RENTAL VALUE; DECLARATIONS OF BARUCH COHEN AND GREGORY HEBNER IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Civil Case Cover Sheet

1/23/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Management Conference

1/23/2017: Notice of Case Management Conference

Summons

1/23/2017: Summons

Complaint

1/23/2017: Complaint

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MOTION TO QUASH

2/14/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MOTION TO QUASH

Notice of Related Case

2/14/2017: Notice of Related Case

Request for Judicial Notice

2/14/2017: Request for Judicial Notice

Motion to Consolidate

2/14/2017: Motion to Consolidate

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MOTION TO STRIKE

2/14/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MOTION TO STRIKE

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OPPOSITION

2/28/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OPPOSITION

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MEMORANDUM-AT-ISSUE

3/2/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: MEMORANDUM-AT-ISSUE

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2017-03-07 00:00:00

3/7/2017: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER ENTERED: 2017-03-07 00:00:00

195 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/08/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Community Rebuild Partners LLC (Plaintiff); Community Rebuild Asset Holdings, LLC (Plaintiff); Community Rebuild Partners (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/08/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Community Rebuild Partners LLC (Plaintiff); Community Rebuild Asset Holdings, LLC (Plaintiff); Community Rebuild Partners (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department W, Virginia Keeny, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/06/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/20/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department W, Virginia Keeny, Presiding; Ruling on Submitted Matter

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/20/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 09/20/2021); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/20/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Ruling on Submitted Matter)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/17/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department W, Virginia Keeny, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees - Held - Taken under Submission

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/17/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/16/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department W, Virginia Keeny, Presiding; Ruling on Submitted Matter

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
317 More Docket Entries
  • 02/14/2017
  • DocketMotion to Consolidate; Filed by Lieba Chanin (Defendant); Sam Chanin (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/07/2017
  • DocketAcknowledgement-Receipt; Filed by Attorney-Defendant

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 02/07/2017
  • DocketNotice and Acknowledgment of Receipt; Filed by Lieba Chanin (Defendant); Sam Chanin (Defendant)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/23/2017
  • DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/23/2017
  • DocketSummons Issued; Filed by Attorney-Plaintiff

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/23/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/23/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Community Rebuild Partners LLC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/23/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Community Rebuild Partners LLC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/23/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Attorney-Plaintiff

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/23/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Community Rebuild Partners LLC (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: ****5136 Hearing Date: October 6, 2021 Dept: W

community rebuild partners llc v. chanin, et al.

judgment debtors/defendants’ motion to tax costs

Date of Hearing: October 6, 2021 Trial Date: N/A

Department: W Case No.: ****5136

Moving Party: Defendants Sam Chanin and Lieba Chanin

Responding Party: Judgment Creditors Community Rebuild Partners, LLC ("CRP-LLC"), Community Rebuild Asset Holdings, LLC ("CRAH"), and Community Rebuild Partners ("CRP")

[tentative] ruling:

Defendants Sam Chanin and Lieba Chanin’s Motion to Tax Costs is CONTINUED.

discussion

Community Rebuild Partners filed a memorandum of costs on appeal on August 25, 2021, seeking costs on appeal of $7020.32. Defendants Sam Chanin and Lieba Chanin move the court for an order taxing costs on the Memorandum of Costs on Appeal by Plaintiffs Community Rebuild Partners. Specifically, defendants seek to tax $435 for “transmitting, filing and serving of record, briefs, and other papers”, $6,270.12 for “other expenses reasonably necessary to secure surety bond”, $1,756.12 for “Court reporter fees”, and $4,949.00 for “other faxes/scans, courtesy copies to chambers, other vendors”. Plaintiffs did not complete much of the memorandum of costs worksheet, but did submit billing records, invoices and costs receipts with its initial memorandum of costs. Community Rebuild did not file a formal opposition to the motion to tax costs, but relies on its motion for attorney’s fees on appeal, in which it affirmatively sought costs.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 sets forth the costs recoverable by the prevailing party. (CCP ; 1033.5.) “Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” (CCP ;1033.5(c)(2); Perko’s Enterprises, Inc. v. RRNS Enterprises (l992) 4 Cal.App.4th 238, 244.)

A “properly verified memorandum of costs is considered prima facie evidence that the costs listed in the memorandum were necessarily incurred.” (Bach v. County of Butte (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 294, 308.) “Documentation must be submitted only when a party dissatisfied with the costs claimed in the memorandum challenges them by filing a motion to tax costs.” (Id. at 308.) The memorandum of costs need not contain invoices, billings, or statements. (Ibid.) (See also CRC Rule 3.1700(a)(1) [only verification required This puts the burden on the party seeking to tax costs to show that they were not reasonable or necessary. (Ladas v. California State Automotive Assoc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 773-74.) If items are properly objected to, they are put in issue and the burden of proof is on the party claiming them as costs. (Id.)

Community Rebuild does not submit a formal opposition to the motion to tax costs. Instead, Community Rebuild addresses their costs in their motion for attorney fees, in which Community Rebuild claimed $5,038.32 and $7,020.32 in costs, without explaining the discrepancy. In the motion for attorney’s fees, Community Rebuild contends the bill dates for their costs are as follows: 7-31-2020 for $803.00; 8-12-2020 for $768.00; 11-11-2020 for $2,672.32; 3-15-2021 for $455.00; 4-28-2021 for $150.00; 6-22-2021 for $190.00; and 8-5-2021 for $1,982.00. The memorandum of costs is filled with errors and inconsistencies. For example, in one place plaintiff seeks other expenses reasonably necessary to secure a surety bond ($6270.12), while there was no surety bond, and in another place plaintiff describes those same costs as partially for a court reporter fees and partially “faxes/scans; courtesy copies to chambers; and other vendors.” The court has done its best to make sense of the information provided so as to rule on the motion to tax costs.

Transmitting, filing, and serving of record, briefs, and other papers

Defendants seek to strike the $435 for ‘transmitting, filing, and serving of records, briefs, and other papers’ on the grounds there is no corresponding entry for this item and therefore, it same should be stricken.

The court agrees. Community Rebuild does not provide exactly where the $435 comes from. The 4-28-21 (listed as 4-29-21 on the invoice) for $150.00 is the TrueFiling Service Notification. The court cannot locate the $190.00 cost on 6-22-2021. Either way, the costs added together do not amount to $435.

The court strikes these costs.

Other expenses reasonably necessary to secure surety bond

Defendants seek to strike the $6,270.12 on the grounds there was no surety bond.

There was no surety bond and these costs are not supported by the record. The court grants the motion to strike any costs associated with a surety bond. However, as stated below, these costs seem to be a combination of court reporter fees and other costs set forth in Paragraph 16 of the worksheet.

Court Reporter Fees

Defendant seeks to strike the $1,756.12 for court reporter fees on the grounds “there is no support for this flippant request and should be stricken.”

Plaintiff only provides one invoice for the court reporter in the amount of $94.00. Pursuant to Government Code section 68086, parties may arrange at their own expense the presence of a certified court approved shorthand reporter to serve as an official pro tempore reporter. (Govt. Code ; 68086(d)(2).) “The fees and charges of the certified shorthand reporter shall be recoverable as taxable costs by the prevailing party as otherwise provided by law.” (Id.) (See also CCP ; 1033.5(a)(11); Jameson v. Oresta (2015) 241 Cal. App. 4th 491, 502-503.) In order to be recoverable, they must be “established by statute.” (C.C.P. Section 1033.5(a)(11). Plaintiff has not cited to any statute that establishes entitlement to court reporter fees.

The court strikes the amount sought for court reporter fees.

Other: faxes/scans; courtesy copies to chambers; other vendors

Defendant seeks to strike the $4,949 on the grounds none of these items are allowable per section code 1033.5. The court agrees, in part.

“Fax expenses contain elements of all three of the above nonrecoverable items, and it is unlikely that the Legislature intended to allow attorneys to circumvent the statutory bar by using a fax machine instead of the mail, the telephone or a photocopier.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, 775.)

As for the courtesy copies, it appears plaintiff’s courtesy copies amount to $924.50. Although courtesy copies may not have been required for every filing, the court finds these costs were reasonably necessary for the conduct of the litigation and are recoverable and such costs are not explicitly disallowed under the statute. As such, the court strikes $4,024.50.

In sum, the court grants the motion to strike in part, striking $6215.62 from the request for costs.

Plaintiff is entitled to costs on appeal in the amount of $1239.5.

'


b'

Case Number: ****5136 Hearing Date: September 17, 2021 Dept: W

community rebuild partners llc v. chanin, et al.

judgment creditors’ motion for attorney fees

Date of Hearing: September 17, 2021 Trial Date: None set.

Department: W Case No.: ****5136

Moving Party: Community Rebuild Partners, LLC ("CRP-LLC"), Community Rebuild Asset Holdings, LLC ("CRAH"), and Community Rebuild Partners ("CRP")

Responding Party: Defendants Sam Chanin and Lieba Chanin

BACKGROUND

On January 23, 2017, Plaintiff Community Rebuild Partners LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a verified unlawful detainer complaint against Defendants Sam Chanin and Lieba Chanin (collectively, “Defendants”) and Does 1 through 5. On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On May 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a “Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions” for the purchase of the premises located at 5302 Leghorn Avenue, Sherman Oaks, CA 91401. The total purchase price was $2,575,000.00. The purchase agreement’s financing terms called for an initial deposit in escrow of $100,000; a first loan in the amount of $2,060,000; and a balance of $415,000 to be deposited in escrow. The purchase agreement also provided that escrow would close 180 days from acceptance of the buyer’s offer.

Under the “other terms,” the purchase agreement provided: Buyer shall be moving into the property at the onset of escrow. Buyer shall pay $18,000 a month for rent. $6,000 from each month’s rent paid shall be credited towards the purchase price with a cap of $36,000 to be credited.

It is alleged that Defendants were never willing to purchase the property and that Defendants never closed escrow as required and as such, not entitled to any credits. On June 19, 2017, the court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend. Plaintiff appealed the court’s ruling, and the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of dismissal and remanded the matter. A remittitur was filed on June 25, 2019.

Each side moved for summary judgment. The issue to be determined was whether the Defendants are in possession of the property as a result of a landlord tenant relationship and if so, whether Defendants have demonstrated entitlement to possession and holdover damages.

On September 13, 2019, this court heard cross motions for summary judgement. The motions were extensively breached and after careful consideration of the legal positions of each side along with the applicable facts and law, the court denied Defendants’ motion and granted plaintiffs motion as it pertains to possession. The court ordered further proceedings as to damages to be determined in a related case.

The order granting summary judgment was appealed. Ultimately, the court of appeal affirmed this court’s ruling on July 23, 2021 and awarded “costs on appeal.”

[tentative] ruling:

Motion for Attorney Fees is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Judgment Creditor requests this court take judicial notice of (1) California Appellate Court’s 7-14-2021 Decision in Community Rebuild Partners LLC v. Chanin Sam, # B302457 (LASC # ****5136) and the (2) Third Amended Complaint in Community Rebuild Partners LLC v. Chanin Sam, LASC # ****5136.

Judgment Creditor’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code ;452(d), (h).)

evidentiary objections

Judgment Creditor objects to Exhibit D and ¶ 7a-f of Zelig’s Declaration re: Cohen vs Moore on the grounds Cohen vs Moore is more prejudicial than probative and the Court has discretion to exclude it.

The court sustains the objection.

discussion

Judgment Creditors (or “Community”) move for an order awarding attorney fees and costs awarded by the appellate court in the amount of $80,655.00 and costs in the amount of $7,020.32, for the necessary defense of this action, totaling $87,675.32.

As a general rule, each party to litigation must bear its own attorney fees, unless otherwise provided by statute or contract. (CCP ;1021.) However, Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (a) provides in pertinent part: “In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney\'s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney\'s fees in addition to other costs.”

“Ordinarily, in an action on a contract providing for an award of attorney fees, Civil Code section 1717 entitles the prevailing party to attorney fees, even when the party prevails on the ground that the contract is inapplicable, invalid, unenforceable, or nonexistent…” (Yuba Cypress Housing Partners, Ltd. v. Area Developers (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1081-1082.) Contractual attorney\'s fees must ordinarily be sought by noticed motion, unless the parties stipulate otherwise. (See CCP ; 1033.5(c)(5); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702(a).) A motion is necessary to determine both entitlement to, and the amount of, any fees. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702(a) [motion procedure applies when court determines entitlement to fees, amount of fees, or both]; P R Burke Corp. v Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Auth. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1052.)

The court first notes the opposition is untimely. Defendants request relief relative to the late filed opposition per Code of Civil Procedure section 473. The court finds Section 473 is not the proper vehicle for late filed oppositions. Regardless, the court finds Community Rebuild was not prejudiced as it was able to file a reply, and will consider the opposition.

The parties do not dispute Community Rebuild is the prevailing party or that attorney fees are available pursuant to the contract. In fact, Section 25 of the Purchase Agreement - Attorneys Fees provides: “In any action, proceeding, or arbitration between Buyer and Seller arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing Buyer or Seller shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs from the non-prevailing Buyer or Seller, except as provided in paragraph 22A.” Plaintiffs contend that despite this provision, Community Rebuild is not entitled to any fees because they failed to mediate the action.

Plaintiffs argue as reflected in Exhibit 2 to the moving papers, defendant Lieba and Community Rebuild entered into an agreement which gave the prevailing party in a legal dispute the right to attorney fees if the prevailing party attempted to mediate before suit was filed. More specifically, provision 39 of Exhibit 2 states in pertinent part that the prevailing party will be entitled to attorney fees “except as provided in paragraph 38A”.

Paragraph 38A provides that if any party commences an action without first attempting to resolve the matter through mediation, then that party shall not be entitled to recover attorney fees. (Exh. 2.)

Community Rebuild argues Community’s Motion was per the appellate court\'s order granting attorney fees and costs on appeal. (RJN, Exh. 3.) The court agrees Community Rebuild is entitled to costs on appeal. However, the court notes it is only costs for the appeal, nothing else. The only evidence presented on this motion establishes that Community Rebuild refused to mediate despite a request being made by the Chanins. Community Rebuild failed to present any evidence that it attempted to mediate.

The Judgment Creditors argue that despite the provision in the parties’ agreement mandating mediation before any party can seek fees, they are entitled to invoke the equitable principle of judicial estoppel to seek fees even though they failed to mediate. Community Rebuild cites to Manier v. Anaheim Business Center Co. (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 503, at 505-507 and International Billing Services, Inc. v. Emigh (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1175, 1186. Those cases are distinguishable. While it is true that Defendants did request attorney fees under the contract in their answer filed on August 27, 2019, the evidence indicates that defendants did request mediation and used their best efforts to “resolve the matter” through mediation. Had they prevailed, they would have been entitled to seek under the Provision 39 of the contract. Thus, defendants’ action in seeking defensive fees does not estop them from opposing fees now, based on plaintiffs’ failure to participate in mediation.

Because Community Rebuild failed to mediate this action prior to filing suit, Community Rebuild is not entitled to attorney fees prior to appeal or incurred during appeal. Attorney\'s fees are not specifically listed as recoverable costs on appeal. (See Rules of Court, rule 8.278(d)(1).) Rule 8.278 specifically provides: “Unless the court orders otherwise, an award of costs neither includes attorney\'s fees on appeal nor precludes a party from seeking them under rule 3.1702.” (Rules of Court, rule 8.278(d)(2).) Here, the Court of Appeal only ordered that Community Rebuild is entitled to recover their costs on appeal; it did not expressly order that attorney\'s fees would be included in these costs. Therefore, Community Rebuild is not automatically entitled to recover their attorney fees because they prevailed on the appeal.

Because Community Rebuild is not entitled to attorney fees, the court does not need to reach the merits of the remaining arguments.

As a result, Community Rebuild’s Motion for Attorney Fees is DENIED. Community Rebuild is entitled to costs on appeal. A motion to tax costs is separately pending.

Lastly, the court briefly addresses attorney Zelig’s strenuous objection to a statement in Community’s pleadings which he found highly objectionable. The court does not believe there was an intent to compare Mr. Zelig to a Nazi. The language from the moving papers was: “And while not the subject of this Motion, Chanin’s attorney Steven Zelig shares responsibility and blame for this injustice to Community, asserting frivolous appeals and arguments to give the Chanins free rent on a multi-million dollar property. Zelig’s “Nuremberg Defense” that he was merely doing his job, rings hollow.” Although Mr. Zelig correctly points out that to be associated with a criminal defendant in the Nuremberg trials – all of whom were Nazis or their collaborators -- the expression “the Nuremberg Defense” has become part of common parlance, referring generally to someone who seeks to defend their actions by arguing that they were just “following orders.” The court does not find any deliberate effort to accuse Mr. Zelig of being a Nazi, or to cause him pain or embarrassment. Nonetheless, the court admonishes counsel to comport with all guidelines of civility and professionalism and to avoid any use of terminology that, intentionally or not, might be upsetting to someone based on their race, religion, national origin, or other protected classification.

'


b'

Case Number: ****5136 Hearing Date: September 14, 2021 Dept: W

community rebuild partners llc v. chanin, et al.

judgment creditors’ motion to release escrowed funds

Date of Hearing: September 14, 2021 Trial Date: None set.

Department: W Case No.: ****5136

Moving Party: Judgment Creditors Community Rebuild Partners, LLC ("CRP-LLC"), Community Rebuild Asset Holdings, LLC ("CRAH"), and Community Rebuild Partners ("CRP")

Responding Party: Defendants Sam Chanin and Lieba Chanin

BACKGROUND

On January 23, 2017, Plaintiff Community Rebuild Partners LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a verified unlawful detainer complaint against Defendants Sam Chanin and Lieba Chanin (collectively, “Defendants”). On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint and on May 19, 2017, a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a “Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions” for the purchase of the premises located at 5302 Leghorn Avenue, Sherman Oaks, CA 91401. The total purchase price was $2,575,000.00. The purchase agreement’s financing terms called for an initial deposit in escrow of $100,000; a first loan in the amount of $2,060,000; and a balance of $415,000 to be deposited in escrow. The purchase agreement also provided that escrow would close 180 days from acceptance of the buyer’s offer.

Under the “other terms,” the purchase agreement provided: Buyer shall be moving into the property at the onset of escrow. Buyer shall pay $18,000 a month for rent. $6,000 from each month’s rent paid shall be credited towards the purchase price with a cap of $36,000 to be credited.

It is alleged that Defendants were never willing to purchase the property and that Defendants never closed escrow as required and as such, are not entitled to any credits. On June 19, 2017, the court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend. Plaintiff appealed the court’s ruling, and the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of dismissal and remanded the matter. A remittitur was filed on June 25, 2019.

After issuance of the remittitur, a Third Amended Complaint was filed. Subsequently, tach side moved for summary judgment. The issue to be determined was whether the Defendants are in possession of the property as a result of a landlord/tenant relationship and if so, whether Defendants have demonstrated entitlement to possession and holdover damages.

On September 13, 2019, this court heard cross motions for summary judgement. The motions were extensively briefed and after careful consideration of the legal positions of each side along with the applicable facts and law, the court denied Defendants’ motion and granted plaintiffs’ motion as it pertains to possession. The court ordered further proceedings as to damages.

Pursuant to this court’s November 12, 2019 Order granting Defendants\' Motion to Stay the action, Defendants were ordered to pay $7,000 each month, by the 5th of the month, directly to the client trust account of plaintiff’s counsel. The court further ordered that if Defendants missed a payment pending appeal, Plaintiff could seek relief from the stay by ex parte application. This order was made pursuant Code of Civil Procedure 1176.

On July 17, 2020, the court heard Plaintiff’s Motion to Dissolve the Stay of Execution Pending Appeal and Request Hearing on Increase of Rental Value. The court denied Plaintiff’s request to lift the stay, and allowed for further briefing on whether the court has jurisdiction over the $21,000 in back rent owed. After further briefing, the court held Defendants’ had not set forth evidence demonstrating an inability to pay the court-ordered $7,000 a month. However, given the unusual circumstances posed by the Covid-19 pandemic and the representation that the unpaid amount will be repaid prior to this hearing, the court declines to lift the stay at this time.

[tentative] ruling:

Judgment Creditors’ Motion to Release Escrowed Funds is GRANTED.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Judgment Creditor requests this court take judicial notice of the following documents: (1) Community’s 8-15-20219 Verified Statement of the Contract Rent for Rental Payment Pursuant to C.C.P. ; 1170.5(c); (2) This Court’s 8-21-2019 Minute Order Granting Community’s Verified Statement of the Contract Rent for Rental Payment Pursuant to C.C.P. ; 1170.5(c); (3) Community’s 8-21-2019 Notice of Rulings On: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Defendants’ Demurrer/motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Cause of Action for Unlawful Detainer (3rd Amended Complaint; Plaintiffs’ Statement of the Contract Rent for Rental Payment Pursuant to C.C.P. ; 1170.5(c); Trial Setting Conference; (4) This Court’s 11-12-2019 Minute Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending Appeal; (5) This Court’s 9-24-2019 Judgment After Motion for Summary Judgment; and (6) California Appellate Court’s 7-14-2021 decision affirming the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment Creditors’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Evid. Code ;452(d), (h).)

discussion

Judgment Creditors (or “Community”) move the court for an order releasing approximately $167,299.61 in funds that are escrowed in Community’s counsel’s attorney client trust account.

On August 15, 2019, Community filed a Verified Statement of the Contract Rent for Rental Payment Pursuant to C.C.P. ; 1170.5(c). (RJN, Exh. 1.) The Motion stated Community was entitled, as a matter of law, to require defendants to post a bond into escrow as the rent would have otherwise become due and payable for so long as defendants remained in possession of the property, pending the termination of the action.

On August 21, 2019, the court granted the Motion. The court found there was a reasonable probability that at least Plaintiff CRAH, as the owner of the property, would prevail in this action, defendants remained in possession of the property, and plaintiffs have been damaged by the withholding of rent. (RJN, Exh. 2.)

On November 12, 2019, the court granted defendants’ request to stay the matter pending appeal. The court, however, noted if defendants miss a payment pending appeal, plaintiff may seek relief from the stay by ex parte application. (RJN, Exh. 4.) Pursuant to the court’s orders, Chanin defendants have paid approximately $167,299.61 into Community’s counsel’s attorney client trust account.

After an MSJ and another appeal, the California Appellate Court issued its ruling affirming this court’s judgment of unlawful detainer, awarding Community’s attorney fees and costs. (RJN, Exh. 6.)

As a result, Judgment Creditors contend the judgment awarding possession of the premises and awarding the unpaid rent is now final. Judgment Creditors also contend the Chanin defendants have abandoned the property and this abandonment is an admission of liability.

In opposition, defendants argue the court must decline the request for release of the escrowed funds because a stipulation was reached that the issue of hold over damages would be determined in the separate civil action, currently pending before Judge Doyle. In the September 24, 2019 Judgment After Motion for Summary Judgment order, the court held:

Hold-Over Damages

After further discussion about the appropriateness of holding a trial on the issue of Plaintiffs’ claimed hold-over damages and the reasonable rental value of the property, the court concluded that such issues should be tried in the civil lawsuit to preclude inconsistent rulings. The parties stipulated that the issue of damages is reserved for determination in the pending civil action, without prejudice to either parties’ rights with respect to such damages or offsets.” (Opp. Exh. 1.)

Judgment Creditors contend this court has jurisdiction over the escrowed funds, and not the civil case because in the November 12, 2019 motion to stay pending appeal, the court ruled “If Defendants miss a payment pending appeal, plaintiff may seek relief from the stay by ex parte application.” (RJN, Exh. 4.)

The court finds the escrowed funds and hold-over damages are separate issues. Defendants have failed to make a payment and this action has been disposed of by summary judgment. The Court of Appeals has affirmed this judgment. As a result, the court releases the escrowed funds. CCP 1170.5 states “(d) If the defendant fails to make a payment ordered by the court, trial of the action shall be held within 15 days of the date payment was due. … (f) After trial of the action, the court shall determine the distribution of the payment made into court or the escrow designated by the court.”

'


Case Number: ****5136    Hearing Date: September 17, 2020    Dept: W

community rebuild partners llc v. chanin, et al.

motion to increase bond payment and further evidentiary hearing on defendants claim for inability to pay

Date of Hearing: September 17, 2020 Trial Date: N/A

Department: W Case No.: ****5136

Moving party: Judgment Creditor Community Rebuild Partners, LLC; Community Rebuild Asset Holdings, LLC; Community Rebuild Partners

Responding party:

BACKGROUND

On January 23, 2017, Plaintiff Community Rebuild Partners LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a verified unlawful detainer complaint against Defendants Sam Chanin and Lieba Chanin (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 through 5. On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On May 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a “Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions” for the purchase of the premises located at 5302 Leghorn Avenue, Sherman Oaks, CA 91401. The total purchase price was $2,575,000.00. The purchase agreement’s financing terms called for an initial deposit in escrow of $100,000; a first loan in the amount of $2,060,000; and a balance of $415,000 to be deposited in escrow. The purchase agreement also provided that escrow would close 180 days from acceptance of the buyer’s offer.

Under the “other terms,” the purchase agreement provided: “Buyer shall be moving into the property at the onset of escrow. Buyer shall pay $18,000 a month for rent. $6,000 from each month’s rent paid shall be credited towards the purchase price with a cap of $36,000 to be credited.

It is alleged that defendants were never willing to purchase the property, and that defendants never closed escrow as required and are therefore not entitled to any credits. On June 19, 2017 the court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend. Plaintiff appealed the court’s ruling, and the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of dismissal and remanded the matter. A remittitur was filed on June 25, 2019.

On July 17, 2019, plaintiff filed an ex parte application to allow amendment to the SAC to add names of plaintiffs. The original plaintiff is Community Rebuild Partners, LLC (“CRP, LLC”). That entity is neither the true owner of the property nor the party named on the Interim Occupancy Agreement. As such the plaintiff wished to amend to add Community Rebuild Partners (“CRP”) (entity unknown) who is the party to the occupancy agreement and add Community Rebuild Asset Holdings, LLC (“CRAH”) who is the owner of the property.

On July 18, 2019, the court denied plaintiff’s ex parte application to allow amendment to the SAC but allowed a motion on shortened notice. The court heard and granted the motion on July 26, 2019. A Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) was filed on August 1, 2019. At the time of the hearing re: amendment, the court noted that a demurrer was calendared for August 15. The court noted that the demurrer was moot by the new pleading but allowed a demurrer to the TAC to be filed and heard the same day.

Each side moved for summary judgment. The issue to be determined was whether the Defendants are in possession of the property as a result of a landlord tenant relationship and if so, whether Defendants have demonstrated entitlement to possession and holdover damages.

On September 13, 2019, this court heard cross motions for summary judgement. The motions were extensively briefed and after careful consideration of the legal positions of each side along with the applicable facts and law, the court denied Defendants’ motion and granted plaintiffs motion as it pertains to possession. The court ordered further proceedings as to damages.

Pursuant to this court’s November 12, 2019 Order granting Defendants' Motion to Stay, Defendants were ordered to pay $7,000 each month, by the 5th of the month, directly to the client trust account of plaintiff’s counsel. The court further ordered that if Defendants miss a payment pending appeal, Plaintiff may seek relief from the stay by ex parte application. This order was made pursuant Code of Civil Procedure 1176.

On July 17, 2020, the court heard Plaintiff’s Motion to Dissolve Stay of Execution Pending Appeal and Request Hearing on Increase of Rental Value. The court denied Plaintiff’s request to lift the stay, and allowed for further briefing on whether the court has jurisdiction over the $21,000 in back rent owed.

DISCUSSION

First, defendants submit the declaration of Sam Chanin, who declares that defendants have “have resumed the payment of rent as of July 2020 and will have paid the back rent of $21,000.00 by the date of the hearing on September 17, 2020.” (S. Chanin Decl. ¶ 6.) However, defendants set forth no additional evidence or argument to support their inability to pay. The sole argument raised in the supplemental brief is that this court lost jurisdiction to change the November 12, 2019, Order due to the filing of an appeal by plaintiff.

Chanin attaches heavily redacted bank statements to his declaration. The statements redact all identifying information such as the name of the account holder and the full account number, and leave visible only the total monthly deposits amount. (S. Chanin Decl. Exh. 1.) The statements provided cover the January through June, 2020, period and reflect a progressively dwindling monthly deposit amount of $54,726 in January 2020, to $12,820 in June 2020. (Id.)

However, as noted by Plaintiff in its supplemental opposition, defendants made a total of 458 withdrawals from the account during said period, and although the monthly deposit amount may have diminished, defendants have concealed the total balance of the account so as to render it impossible to assess defendants’ inability to pay.

Here, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate an inability to pay. Defendants appear to concede this fact as they simply argue that the matter will be moot as they will have repaid the $21,000 before this hearing. (S. Chanin Decl. ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff concludes its opposition memorandum by asserting that “Judgment Debtors’ evidence of their inability to pay the Court-Ordered $7,000.00 a month remains woefully insufficient, highly questionable, and provides the Court with the necessary grounds for lifting the stay of execution.” (Supp Opp. 9:19-21.) The stay in question was ordered on November 12, 2019, when the court ordered that

the court orders that defendants pay the amount of $7000 each month, by the 5th of the month, directly to the client trust account of plaintiff’s counsel. The court deems this amount to be the fair rental amount for purposes of the stay based on prior determinations and representations of counsel that this is the fair rental value. This determination is made without prejudice to either party requesting that an evidentiary hearing be set at some future date to modify this amount. If Defendants miss a payment pending appeal, plaintiff may seek relief from the stay by ex parte application.

(11/12/2019 Minute Order p. 7-8.)

The stay was issued “pending appeal” of the summary judgment entered in Plaintiff’s favor. (Id.) However, Defendants contend that the court now has no jurisdiction to modify the Order setting the monthly payment pending appeal because Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the November 12, 2019, Order on January 10, 2020. This appeal was dismissed on March 12, 2020, but reinstated on April 3, 2020.

indeed, Plaintiff’s appeal of the November 12, 2019, Order is still pending. As such, it is axiomatic that said order cannot be modified by this court. This court’s Code Civ. Proc. ; 1176’s stay was conditioned upon Defendants not missing a payment as ordered by the court. As payments have been missed, and Defendants have not shown an inability to pay, the stay may be lifted. However, Plaintiff’s subsequent appeal of the order itself imposes a stay on matters embraced or affected by the appeal. (Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 180, 189, 106 P.3d 958, 964.)

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ have not set forth evidence demonstrating an inability to pay the court-ordered $7,000 a month. The Code Civ. Proc. ; 1176 stay of execution may be lifted for Defendants’ failure to pay the April, May, and June payments. Nonetheless, given the unusual circumstances posed by the Covid-19 pandemic and the representation that the unpaid amount will be repaid prior to this hearing, the court declines to lift the stay at this time.



Case Number: ****5136    Hearing Date: July 17, 2020    Dept: W

community rebuild partners llc v. chanin, et al.

motion to dissolve stay of execution pending appeal and request hearing on increase of rental value

Date of Hearing: July 17, 2020 Trial Date: None set.

Department: W Case No.: ****5136

Moving Party: Plaintiffs Community Rebuild Partners, LLC ("CRP-LLC"), Community Rebuild Asset Holdings, LLC ("CRAH"), and Community Rebuild Partners ("CRP")

Responding Party: Defendants Sam Chanin and Lieba Chanin

BACKGROUND

On January 23, 2017, Plaintiff Community Rebuild Partners LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a verified unlawful detainer complaint against Defendants Sam Chanin and Lieba Chanin (collectively, “Defendants”) and Does 1 through 5. On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On May 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a “Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions” for the purchase of the premises located at 5302 Leghorn Avenue, Sherman Oaks, CA 91401. The total purchase price was $2,575,000.00. The purchase agreement’s financing terms called for an initial deposit in escrow of $100,000; a first loan in the amount of $2,060,000; and a balance of $415,000 to be deposited in escrow. The purchase agreement also provided that escrow would close 180 days from acceptance of the buyer’s offer.

Under the “other terms,” the purchase agreement provided: Buyer shall be moving into the property at the onset of escrow. Buyer shall pay $18,000 a month for rent. $6,000 from each month’s rent paid shall be credited towards the purchase price with a cap of $36,000 to be credited.

It is alleged that Defendants were never willing to purchase the property and that Defendants never closed escrow as required and as such, not entitled to any credits. On June 19, 2017, the court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend. Plaintiff appealed the court’s ruling, and the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of dismissal and remanded the matter. A remittitur was filed on June 25, 2019.

On July 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to allow amendment to the SAC to add names of Plaintiffs. The original Plaintiff is Community Rebuild Partners, LLC (“CRP-LLC”). However, that entity is neither the true owner of the property nor the party named on the Interim Occupancy Agreement. As such, the Plaintiff wished to amend to add Community Rebuild Partners (entity unknown) who is the party to the occupancy agreement and add Community Rebuild Asset Holdings, LLC (“CRAH”) who is the owner of the property.

On July 18, 2019, the court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to allow amendment to the SAC but allowed a motion on shortened notice. The court heard and granted the motion on July 26, 2019. A third amended complaint was filed on August 1, 2019. At the time of the hearing re: amendment, the court noted that a Demurrer was calendared for August 15, 2019. The court noted that the demurrer was moot by the new pleading, but allowed a demurrer to the TAC to be filed and heard the same day.

Each side moved for summary judgment. The issue to be determined was whether the Defendants are in possession of the property as a result of a landlord tenant relationship and if so, whether Defendants have demonstrated entitlement to possession and holdover damages.

On September 13, 2019, this court heard cross motions for summary judgement. The motions were extensively breached and after careful consideration of the legal positions of each side along with the applicable facts and law, the court denied Defendants’ motion and granted plaintiffs motion as it pertains to possession. The court ordered further proceedings as to damages.

discussion

Pursuant to this court’s November 12, 2019 Order granting Defendants' Motion to Stay, Defendants were ordered to pay $7,000 each month, by the 5th of the month, directly to the client trust account of plaintiff’s counsel. The court further ordered that if Defendants miss a payment pending appeal, Plaintiff may seek relief from the stay by ex parte application. This order was made pursuant Code of Civil Procedure 1176.

In the instant matter, Plaintiffs claim Defendants have not made a payment as required by the court since March 5, 2020. As such, the total amount due and owing as of June 21, 2020 is $21,000.00. The court notes Defendants did make one payment since March 2020 on July 2, 2020. (Cohen Decl. ¶8.) Plaintiffs argue the court should dissolve the stay and allow the eviction to proceed. Defendants counter that they are protected by the moratorium passed by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, which provides specific rules for the repayment of back rent due for March through June, including 12 months for repayment after the moratorium ends, a rent and eviction freeze and

other relief for residential tenants. That temporary moratorium is effective from March 4, 2020 through July 31, 2020 and may be extended by the Board of Supervisors on a month-to-month basis. Defendants also rely on the Judicial Council Emergency Ruling,

dated April 6, 2020, which postpones any set hearings for at least 60 days and prevents courts from accepting any eviction cases until 90 days after the State of Emergency is lifted. California Rules of Court Emergency Rule 1(d)(e). Defendants submit declaration testimony that they have been severely impacted by Covid-19 and are unable to pay the court-ordered $7000.

Plaintiff also contends the EXECUTIVE ORDER N-28-20, dated March 4, 2020, by the Governor of the State of California, Gavin Newsom, relates only to the basis for eviction and enforcement action for the tenants' failure to pay rent. The order contains no reference to Civil Code Section ;917.4, any post-judgment enforcement actions, or any matters on appeal. (Exh. 2.) Moreover, the subsequent EXECUTIVE ORDER N-37-20, dated March 27, 2020, clarified the conditions upon which a person could avoid paying rent. Those conditions include the "tenant" having paid rent pursuant to an agreement, which is not relevant here since the “rent” was ordered by the court as a condition for granting the stay on appeal.

As such, according to Plaintiffs, to call the $7,000 “rent” is a misnomer. Plaintiffs also state this is not an eviction subject to moratorium because this is no longer an eviction proceeding.

First, the court notes Plaintiff incorrectly refers to section 917.4 which deals with stay of enforcement and other proceedings. The court on November 18, 2019 did not issue the stay based on section 917.4, but under 1176(a). Section 1176(a), the statute addressing stays of enforcement pending appeal in unlawful detainer actions, is inconsistent with the general provision, section 917.4, which addresses judgments directing the delivery of real property. The action before the court is an unlawful detainer action.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1176 provides:

An appeal taken by the defendant shall not automatically stay proceedings upon the judgment. Petition for stay of the judgment pending appeal shall first be directed to the judge before whom it was rendered. Stay of judgment shall be granted when the court finds that the moving party will suffer extreme hardship in the absence of a stay and that the nonmoving party will not be irreparably injured by its issuance. If the stay is denied by the trial court, the defendant may forthwith file a petition for an extraordinary writ with the appropriate appeals court. If the trial or appellate court stays enforcement of the judgment, the court may condition the stay on whatever conditions the court deems just, but in any case it shall order the payment of the reasonable monthly rental value to the court monthly in advance as rent would otherwise become due as a condition of issuing the stay of enforcement. As used in this subdivision, “reasonable rental value” means the contract rent unless the rental value has been modified by the trial court in which case that modified rental value shall be used. (emphasis added.)

As such, this court ordered rent due as a condition of issuing the stay.

Second, it should be noted that while the Governor’s Executive Order N-37-20 provides that “No writ may be enforced while this Order is in effect to evict a tenant from a residence or dwelling unit for nonpayment of rent who satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs (a)-(c) of paragraph 1,” these Order’s protections were in effect only through May 31, 2020. [1] (Executive Order N-37-20 ; 2.) As of June 12, 2020, there is no order extending this timeframe. [2] Thus, the Executive Orders do not provide any protection to defendants.

The Emergency Rules adopted by the California Judicial Council on April 6, 2020 also do not apply to this situation, as they only bar issuance of a summons on a new unlawful detainer action, and entry of default. (Emergency Rule 1, subsections (b) and (c).) They do not govern stays on appeal or post-judgment proceedings.

The City of Los Angeles’s ordinances relating to payment of rent are less easily dismissed. On May 7, 2020, the City of Los Angeles, issued an ordinance (the “LA City Ordinance”) adding Article 14.6 to the Los Angeles Municipal Code (“LAMC”) to “temporarily prohibit certain residential and commercial evictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.” The LA City Ordinance amendment was codified in LAMC ; 49.99. et seq. The LA City Ordinance as amended provides in part,

This ordinance temporarily prohibits evictions of residential and commercial tenants for failure to pay rent due to COVID-19, and prohibits evictions of residential tenants during the emergency for no-fault reasons, for unauthorized occupants or pets, and for nuisance related to COVID-19. This ordinance further suspends withdrawals of occupied residential units from the rental market under the Ellis Act, Government Code Section 7060, et seq.

(LAMC ; 49.99.) Regarding residential evictions, LAMC ; 49.99.2 provides:

A. During the Local Emergency Period and for 12 months after its expiration, no Owner shall endeavor to evict or evict a residential tenant for non-payment of rent during the Local Emergency Period if the tenant is unable to pay rent due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic. These circumstances include loss of income due to a COVID-19 related workplace closure, child care expenditures due to school closures, health-care expenses related to being ill with COVID-19 or caring for a member of the tenant’s household or family who is ill with COVID-19, or reasonable expenditures that stem from government-ordered emergency measures. Tenants shall have up to 12 months following the expiration of the Local Emergency Period to repay any rent deferred during the Local Emergency Period. Nothing in this article eliminates any obligation to pay lawfully charged rent. However, the tenant and Owner may, prior to the expiration of the Local Emergency Period or within 90 days of the first missed rent payment, whichever comes first, mutually agree to a plan for repayment of unpaid rent selected from options promulgated by the Housing and Community Investment Department (“HCID”) for that purpose.

B. No Owner shall endeavor to evict or evict a residential tenant for a no-fault reason during the Local Emergency Period.

C. No Owner shall endeavor to evict or evict a residential tenant based on the presence of unauthorized occupants or pets, or for nuisance related to COVID-19 during the Local Emergency Period.

G. Except as otherwise specified in this article, nothing in this section shall prohibit an Owner from seeking to evict a residential tenant for a lawful purpose and through lawful means.

EXECUTIVE ORDER N-37-20 and the LA County Ordinance both provide tenants must notify their landlord within 7 days after their rent is due, unless extenuating circumstances exist. In opposition, Defendants argue the guidelines do not state that a tenant forfeits the protections under the moratorium if they fail to give notice as required under the guidelines. However, Defendants make no attempt to argue what the extenuating circumstances existed at the time were. The court also notes Defendants do not provide verifiable documentation of their inability to pay rent due to COVID-19.

Defendants also argue there is no language in the original moratorium or in the guidelines that state a tenant forfeits the protections provided if the tenant fails to give the 7 day notice required in those guidelines. As such, a forfeiture “cannot arise by implication, but can be effected only by clear and unambiguous language.” (Balian v. Rainey (1952) 115 Cal.App.2d 10, 18.)

Plaintiffs argue Los Angeles Municipal Ordinance Number Section 49.99.5 expressly states that it is intended to retroactively apply to “nonpayment eviction notices, no-fault eviction notices, and unlawful detainer actions based on such notices, served or filed on or after the date on which a local emergency was proclaimed [March 4, 2020].” Because this matter was filed, served and completed long before March 4, 2020 and the related limitations on evictions only concern those that began by notice on or after March 4, 2020, Plaintiffs contend the courts order related to the payment of rental value predates the emergency by months.

The LA City Ordinance cannot be applied retrospectively before its effective date to other pending actions unless the court determines the legislature plainly intended so. (City of West Hollywood (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1134, 1144.) As stated above, section 49.99.5 expressly states that it is intended to retroactively apply to nonpayment eviction notices, no-fault eviction notices, and unlawful detainer actions based on such notices, served or filed on or after the date on which a local emergency was proclaimed. As such, it appears the LA City Ordinance is inapplicable here.

Nonetheless, while none of the executive orders or ordinances expressly apply to the situation before the court, the court agrees that it may import some of the public policy considerations animating these emergency provisions when fashioning relief under C.C.P. Section 1176. The court finds that these provisions are animated by a recognition of the financial turmoil caused by Covid-19 and the economic shut-down and that, where possible, evictions should not proceed to lock-out during the emergency period. Such protections should be afforded to those who meet the requirement that they give notice of their inability to pay due to Covid-19 and that they retain verifiable documentation. If the court is satisfied with that showing, the court believes that it should maintain the stay with the proviso that rent be paid as soon as possible. Further, the court may consider whether there is sufficient evidence to support an upward adjustment of the rental amount. Even if it cannot be paid at this time due to Covid-19, it may be appropriate to require a higher amount to reflect the actual fair market value of the residence.


[1] Executive Order N-37-20 ; 1 prohibits a landlord from evicting a tenant from a residence or dwelling unit for non-payment of rent if (a) prior to March 27, 2020, the tenant paid rent due to the landlord pursuant to an agreement, (b) the tenant notifies the landlord in writing before the rent is due, or within a reasonable period of time afterwards not to exceed 7 days, that the tenant needs to delay payment of rent because of an inability to pay the full amount due to reasons related to COVID-19, and (c) the tenant retains verifiable documentation to support the tenant’s assertion of an inability to pay.

[2] Executive Order N-66-20, which the Governor issued on May 29, 2020, specifically stated that “[t]he timeframe for the protections set forth in Executive Order N-28-20, Paragraph 2 is extended for additional 60 days from the date of this Order.” There is no reference or language in Order N-66-20 extending any of the protections offered in Executive Order N-37-20.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where COMMUNITY REBUILD ASSET HOLDINGS, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer ZELIG STEVEN

Latest cases represented by Lawyer RILEY DENNIS P