This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/10/2019 at 07:21:54 (UTC).

DNA PROPERTIES INC VS ALEX H. AI

Case Summary

On 05/15/2017 DNA PROPERTIES INC filed a Property - Commercial Eviction lawsuit against ALEX H AI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GLORIA WHITE-BROWN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9316

  • Filing Date:

    05/15/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Commercial Eviction

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GLORIA WHITE-BROWN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant

DNA PROPERTIES INC

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

AI ALEX H.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LIBRATY MICHAEL ESQ.

HOFSAESS JOHN W

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

NIU WILLIAM LI

 

Court Documents

Unknown

5/15/2017: Unknown

Unknown

6/23/2017: Unknown

Answer

6/23/2017: Answer

Notice of Related Case

6/28/2017: Notice of Related Case

Minute Order

7/12/2017: Minute Order

Request/Counter-Request To Set Case For Trial

8/4/2017: Request/Counter-Request To Set Case For Trial

Minute Order

8/21/2017: Minute Order

Case Management Statement

9/19/2017: Case Management Statement

Other -

10/10/2017: Other -

Minute Order

3/28/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

3/28/2018: Unknown

Substitution of Attorney

6/14/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Notice

12/28/2018: Notice

Motion to Compel Discovery

1/22/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery

Minute Order

2/19/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

2/19/2019: Notice of Ruling

Reply

4/15/2019: Reply

Reply

4/15/2019: Reply

27 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/23/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by DNA PROPERTIES INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • Order (Tentative Ruling); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Reply (Reply in Support of Motion for Issue, Evidentiary and/or Terminating Sanctions Against Defendant Alex Ai; Declaration of John Hofsaess); Filed by DNA PROPERTIES INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Reply (Reply In Support of Motion for Issue, Evidentiary and/or Terminating Sanctions Against Defendant Alex Ai; Declaration of John Hofsaess); Filed by DNA PROPERTIES INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Opposition (Opposition to Motion for Terminating Sanctions); Filed by ALEX H. AI (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Request for Refund / Order; Filed by DNA PROPERTIES INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • Motion for Terminating Sanctions; Filed by DNA PROPERTIES INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
32 More Docket Entries
  • 07/12/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-07-12 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2017
  • Notice of Related Case; Filed by Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2017
  • Answer; Filed by Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2017
  • Summons Issued; Filed by ALEX H. AI (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/23/2017
  • Cross-Complaint; Filed by ALEX H. AI (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by DNA PROPERTIES INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2017
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by DNA PROPERTIES INC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2017
  • Summons (on Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC069316    Hearing Date: February 10, 2020    Dept: J

HEARING DATE: Monday, February 10, 2020

NOTICE: Unclear[1]

RE: DNA Properties, Inc. v. Ai (KC069316)

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Defendant Alex Ai’s MOTION TO SET ASIDE MONETARY AND ISSUE SANCTIONS

Responding Party: Plaintiff, DNA Properties, Inc.

 

Tentative Ruling

Defendant Alex Ai’s Motion to Set Aside Monetary and Issue Sanctions is DENIED.

Background

This is an unlawful detainer action involving the premises located at 15301 Gale Avenue, City of Industry, CA 91745 (“15301”). On May 15, 2017, Plaintiff DNA Properties, Inc. (“DNA”) filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Defendants Alex H. Ai (“Ai”) and Does 1-10 for:

  1. Unlawful Detainer

On June 23, 2017, Ai filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Plaintiff and Roes 1-100 for:

  1. Breach of Contract

  2. Declaratory Relief

On August 23, 2017, a “Stipulation to: 1. Surrender Possession of Leased Premises by September 22, 2017; 2. Continue Unlawful Detainer Trial, and Include an OSC Re: Surrender of Possession, to Week of September 25, 2017; 3. If Possession of Leased Premises is Timely Surrendered, Vacate Continued Trial and Convert Remainder of Case to Civil Action; 4. If Case Converts to Civil Action, Plaintiff and Defendant to Place at Issue Non-Possession Claims and Defenses Concerning Two Separate Premises” and order thereon was filed.

On February 3, 2020, the court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s May 15, 2017 complaint and Ai’s June 23, 2017 cross-complaint. The Final Status Conference is set for February 24, 2020. Trial is set for March 3, 2020.

Legal Standard

“The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief. . . shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken. . .” (CCP § 473(b).)

Discussion

Ai moves the court, per CCP § 473, to set aside the monetary and issue sanctions awarded

against him on October 2, 2019, on the basis that any error that led to Ai’s inadequate

compliance with discovery requests which underlie the motions at issue was due to surprise,

mistake, inadvertence and excusable neglect.

Ai’s motion is DENIED. CCP § 1008(a) and (b) refer to motions for reconsideration and renewal

of prior motions, and CCP § 473(b) refers to motions to set aside adverse orders, judgments,

dismissals, and “other proceeding[s].” The general relief mechanism provided in CCP § 473

cannot be used to circumvent the jurisdictional requirements for reconsideration set forth in CCP

§ 1008. (Gilberd v. A.C. Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1501.) CCP § 1008(e) plainly states

that “[t]his section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for

reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to

reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the

order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any

order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless

made according to this section.”

With respect to motions for reconsideration and renewal, the moving party must show that there

are “new or different facts, circumstances, or law” that justify reconsideration of the order or

renewal of the motion. (CCP § 1008(a),(b).) “A party seeking reconsideration also must provide

a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time.” (New York

Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.) “The burden under section 1008

is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence:

the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have

discovered or produced it at the trial.” (Id. at 212-213.)

Ai has not articulated any “new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” All of the purported

facts set forth in Ai’s supporting declaration were already addressed to the court in connection

with Plaintiff’s “Motion for Issue, Evidentiary and/or Terminating Sanctions.”

Further, a motion for reconsideration made pursuant to CCP § 1008(a) must be made “within 10

days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order.” Plaintiff’s “Motion for

Issue, Evidentiary and/or Terminating Sanctions” was heard on October 1, 2019 and taken under

submission by the court on that date. On October 2, 2019, the court granted the motion with

respect to Plaintiff’s request for evidentiary sanctions; that day, the court clerk served the

“Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)” on the parties, as evidenced by a Certificate of

Mailing. This instant motion, however, was not filed until November 5, 2019.

The court declines Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees as legally unsupported.


[1] The motion was filed on November 5, 2019. Moving party, however, has failed to file a proof of service, to date. The motion is opposed; as such, the court infers that sufficient notice was provided.

Case Number: KC069316    Hearing Date: February 03, 2020    Dept: J

HEARING DATE: Monday, February 3, 2020

NOTICE: OK

RE: DNA Properties, Inc. v. Ai (KC069316)

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Plaintiff DNA Properties, Inc.’s MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 1/29/20, 2:32 p.m.)

 

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff DNA Properties, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as

to DNA’s complaint filed May 15, 2017 in Case No. KC069316 and Ai’s cross-

complaint filed June 23, 2017 in Case No. KC069316 and is otherwise STRICKEN.

Background

This is an unlawful detainer action involving the premises located at 15301 Gale Avenue, City of Industry, CA 91745 (“15301”). On May 15, 2017, Plaintiff DNA Properties, Inc. (“DNA”) filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Defendants Alex H. Ai (“Ai”) and Does 1-10 for:

  1. Unlawful Detainer

On June 23, 2017, Ai filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Plaintiff and Roes 1-100 for:

  1. Breach of Contract

  2. Declaratory Relief

On August 23, 2017, a “Stipulation to: 1. Surrender Possession of Leased Premises by September 22, 2017; 2. Continue Unlawful Detainer Trial, and Include an OSC Re: Surrender of Possession, to Week of September 25, 2017; 3. If Possession of Leased Premises is Timely Surrendered, Vacate Continued Trial and Convert Remainder of Case to Civil Action; 4. If Case Converts to Civil Action, Plaintiff and Defendant to Place at Issue Non-Possession Claims and Defenses Concerning Two Separate Premises” and order thereon was filed.

The Final Status Conference is set for February 24, 2020. Trial is set for March 3, 2020.

Legal Standard

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if 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.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119 [emphasis theirs].)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A plaintiff moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the case of action.” (CCP § 437c(p(1).) “Once the plaintiff . . . has met that burden, the burden shift to the defendant . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (CCP § 437c(p(1).)

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Id. at 467; CCP § 437c(c).)

Discussion

DNA moves the court for an order granting summary judgment in its favor on DNA’s

“consolidated complaints” and against Ai pursuant to CCP § 437c on the ground that no triable

issue of material fact exists and DNA is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. DNA

also seeks summary judgment in its favor and against Ai as to Ai’s cross-complaint. In the

alternative, DNA seeks summary adjudication as to DNA’s “consolidated complaints” and as to

each count against DNA in Ai’s cross-complaint.

At the outset, the court is unclear what DNA means by the term “consolidated complaints.”

There is nothing in the court records which suggests that the instant case, KC069316, was ever

related to or consolidated with any other cases. The court notes that Ai’s cross-complaint filed

June 23, 2017 identifies that DNA filed three actions against Ai, including the instant case and

Case Nos. 17UR1112 and 17UR1113. Case No. 17UR1112 (styled DNA Properties, Inc. v. Ai)

was filed by DNA on May 15, 2017, involved the premises located at 15309 (hereinafter,

“15309”) and was assigned to Department G of this courthouse. On August 23, 2017, an

Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment was filed, and the case was ordered dismissed

without prejudice. Case No. 17UR1113 (styled DNA Properties, Inc. v. Ai) was filed by DNA on

May 15, 2017, involved the premises located at 15311 Gale Avenue, City of Industry, CA 91745

(“15311”) and was assigned to Department G of this courthouse. On August 23, 2017, an

Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment was filed, and the case was ordered dismissed

without prejudice. On June 28, 2017, Notices of Related Cases were filed in Case Nos.

KC069316, 17UR1112 and 17UR1113; however, on July 12, 2017, the court declined to relate

the actions.

The court acknowledges that on August 23, 2017, a “Stipulation to: 1. Surrender Possession of Leased Premises by September 22, 2017; 2. Continue Unlawful Detainer Trial, and Include an OSC Re: Surrender of Possession, to Week of September 25, 2017; 3. If Possession of Leased Premises is Timely Surrendered, Vacate Continued Trial and Convert Remainder of Case to Civil Action; 4. If Case Converts to Civil Action, Plaintiff and Defendant to Place at Issue Non-Possession Claims and Defenses Concerning Two Separate Premises” and order thereon (“Stipulation/Order”) was filed in this instant case. The Stipulation/Order defined the “Leased Premises” therein as 15301 and stated, inter alia, as follows:

“1. Defendant shall surrender possession of the Leased Premises to Plaintiff by no later than September 22, 2017. . .

3. Should the Court grant the requested of the trial date and the requested OSC Re: Surrender of Possession of Leased Premises, and should Defendant surrender possession of the Leased Premises by no later than September 22, 2017 pursuant to the stipulation contained herein, then at the Continued Trial Date/OSC Re: Surrender of Possession of Leased Premises hearing the Plaintiff and Defendant shall so inform the Court and shall request that the continued trial date of the unlawful detainer action be vacated and the OSC Re: Surrender of Possession of Leased Premises be discharged, with the Court to find that due to the possession of the Leased Premises having reverted to Plaintiff pursuant to the stipulation contained herein, the present action will convert to a Civil Action as of the day of the Continued Trial Date/OSC Re: Surrender of Possession of Leased Premises. . .

5. In the event a converted Civil Action arises as provided for herein, then said Civil Action shall adjudicate Plaintiff’s monetary claims and causes of action against Defendant as to the Leased Premises as stated in Plaintiff’s complaint and answer to cross-complaint on file herein, and Defendant’s counter-claims and counter-causes of action against Plaintiff as to the Leased Premises as contained in Defendant’s answer to complaint and cross-complaint on file herein.

6. In the event a converted Civil Action arises as provided for herein, then Plaintiff shall have thirty-five (35) days from that commencement of Civil Action date to amend its complaint and file and serve by U.S. Mail a First Amended Complaint herein that adds Plaintiff’s non-possessory claims and causes of action against Defendant concerning the two premises located at 15311. . . and 15309. . .”

Although the conditions set forth in ¶3 were met (Kracoff Decl., ¶14) and 4:20-25 of

Stipulation/Order), there is nothing in the record which reflects that DNA filed a First Amended

Complaint, as provided in ¶6 of the Stipulation/Order. Accordingly, the court will treat the

instant motion as a motion for summary judgment as to DNA’s complaint filed May 15, 2017 in

Case No. KC069316 and as to Ai’s cross-complaint filed June 23, 2017 in Case No. KC069316

only.

 

 

 

Complaint (in Case No. KC069316 only)

On May 15, 2017, DNA filed a verified complaint against Ai for Unlawful Detainer regarding the premises located at 15301. DNA alleged that on or about January 8, 2016, DNA and Ai entered into a written agreement, wherein DNA agreed to rent 15301 to Ai for the term of February 1, 2016-January 31, 2021 (with one 5-year option upon mutual consent)[1] in exchange for Ai’s payment of rent. DNA alleged that Ai was served with a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit on February 27, 2017, and sought possession of 15301, costs, past-due rent of $47,732.79, forfeiture of the agreement, damages from March 1, 2017 at $268.62/day for each day that Ai remained in possession of 15301 through entry of judgment, and attorneys’ fees.

Possession of 15301 has since been resolved, via the Stipulation/Order.

Again, DNA’s complaint in Case No. KC069316 does not pertain to 15309 and 15311; those portions of DNA’s separate statement (i.e., UMF Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18) and evidence pertaining to 15309 and 15311, then, are disregarded.

“The basic elements of unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent. . .are (1) the tenant is in

possession of the premises; (2) that possession is without permission; (3) the tenant is in default

for nonpayment of rent; (4) the tenant has been properly served with a written three-day notice;

and (5) the default continues after the three-day notice period has elapsed.” (Kruger v. Reyes

(2014) 232 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10.)

DNA has submitted the following evidence: DNA owned and managed 15301. (Kracoff Decl.,

¶¶2-3.) DNA had a contract with Ai for the lease of 15301, by which DNA provided

approximately 4,080 square feet of commercial space to Ai, during the period at issue from

August 2016 through September 22, 2017. (Id., ¶¶5-7 and Exh. A.) The lease for 15301 required

the payment of $6,120.00 per month of base rent, and a monthly common area maintenance

charge of $1,755.00, also applied, for a total monthly charge of $7,875.00. (Id., ¶7, Exh. A;

Verified Complaint, ¶6.a.; Verified Answer, ¶2.b.). As of August 1, 2016, Ai failed to pay the

required rent for 15301 and failed to pay any further rent after that time., (Kracoff Decl., ¶12;

Exh. G; ¶16, Exh. D.) On February 23, 2017, DNA provided Ai a Three-Day Notice in relation

to 15301 documenting Ai failed to pay the stated rent, and Ai never cured that notice by paying

that outstanding rent. (Id.) Based on a stipulation entered into between the parties on August 23,

2017, Ai voluntarily surrendered possession of 15301 on September 22, 2017. (Id., ¶14.) At the

time of surrender, based on the additional rent and common area maintenance charges that

accrued between February 23, 2017 and September 22, 2017, Ai’s balance for the 15301 lease

was $109,153.24. (Id., ¶¶15-16.)

The court finds that this offer of evidence satisfies DNA’s burden of proof, and thus the burden

shifts to Ai to show a triable issue of material fact. Ai has not opposed the motion; thus, Ai has

not met his burden to show a triable issue of material fact exists as to the unlawful detainer

complaint. The court further notes that on October 2, 2019, the court issued evidentiary sanctions

by, inter alia, “prohibiting the admission of any evidence related to any of Defendant’s

affirmative defense[s].”

Accordingly, DNA’s motion for summary judgment of the complaint filed in Case No.

KC069316 is granted, in the amount of $109,153.24.

Cross-Complaint

On June 23, 2017, Ai filed a cross-complaint against DNA for (1) Breach of Contract

And (2) Declaratory Relief. Ai alleged, in relevant part, as follows: DNA is the landlord of the premises occupied by Ai pursuant to 3 commercial lease agreements covering 15301, as well as 15309 and 15311; that in or about 2016, it was discovered by local government authorities that the undergrounds of part of the premises were not fit for operations and posed a dangerous condition; that Ai was forced to shut down his business for a period of time to allow DNA to cure this condition; that in the fall of 2016 and first half of 2107, due to roof leaks on the premises, Ai was forced to shut down his business for a majority of the time to allow DNA to fix the roof; that DNA has failed to fix the roof, to date; that DNA’s workers have damaged Plaintiff’s equipment, fixtures, and other effects; that DNA continuously refused and failed to provide DNA’s insurance to Ai despite Ai’s demands for same; that Ai has notified DNA that his insurance company has cancelled the general liability policy and Ai has not been able to obtain another premises liability policy due to the condition of the structure and roof of the premises caused by DNA; that DNA has refused and failed to fix the structure and roof of the premises to allow Ai to obtain insurance to operate his business, to date; that Ai has consequently suffered damages and that DNA filed this action and 2 others in retaliation of Ai’s claim. (Cross-Complaint, ¶¶11-21.)

First Cause of Action (i.e., Breach of Contract)

“[T]he elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.” (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)

DNA has submitted the following evidence: Ai is precluded from admitting any evidence related

to the loss of use of the premises, past or future loss of business income from any purported

defects at the premises, the leak, and personal property damages. (Hofsaess Decl., ¶4; Exh. J.)

The court finds that this offer of evidence satisfies DNA’s burden of proof, and thus the burden

shifts to Ai to show a triable issue of material fact. Ai has not opposed the motion; thus, Ai has

not met his burden to show a triable issue of material fact exists as to the breach of contract

cause of action.

Second Cause of Action (i.e., Declaratory Relief)

 

“A complaint for declaratory relief must demonstrate: (1) a proper subject of declaratory relief,

and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the rights or obligations

of a party.” (Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 405, 410.)

“The ‘actual controversy’ language in Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 encompasses a

probable future controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the parties.” (Environmental

Defense Project of Sierra County v. County of Sierra (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 877, 885.)

Ai, in his second cause of action, alleged that DNA filed three separate unlawful detainer actions

against him, in Case Nos. KC069316, 17UR1112 and 17UR1113, that “[a]n actual controversy

has arisen and now exists between [Ai] and [DNA] in the above allegations,” and that a judicial

declaration was needed to ascertain the parties’ respective rights and obligations. (Cross-

Complaint, ¶¶35, 39 and 41.) Again, the court notes that Case Nos. 17UR1112 and 17UR1113

were both dismissed without prejudice on August 23, 2017.

DNA, moreover, has submitted the following evidence: Based on a stipulation entered into

between the parties on August 23, 2017, Ai voluntarily surrendered possession of 15301, 15309

and 15311 on September 22, 2017. (Kracoff Decl., ¶14.) There is no other contractual

relationship between DNA and Ai. (Id.)

The court finds that this offer of evidence satisfies DNA’s burden of proof, and thus the burden

shifts to Ai to show a triable issue of material fact. Ai has not opposed the motion; thus, Ai has

not met his burden to show a triable issue of material fact exists as to the declaratory judgment

cause of action.

Accordingly, DNA’s motion for summary judgment of the cross-complaint filed in Case No.

KC069316 is granted.


[1] These terms were set forth in the Commercial Lease Agreement attached as Exhibit 1 to the complaint.