On 07/07/2017 PATRICIA YRIGOLLEN filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JESUS CRUZ. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARGARET MILLER BERNAL and BRIAN F. GASDIA. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
MARGARET MILLER BERNAL
BRIAN F. GASDIA
GARCIA ADRIAN SUED HEREIN AS
GARCIA SOTO ADRIAN
RICHARDSON ANTON R.E.
RICHARDSON ANTON ROBERTS
RICHARDSON ANTON ROBERTS ELDRIDGE
TRAUB LIEBERMAN STRAUS & SHREWSBERRY LLP
ROGER G. HONEY LAW OFFICES OF
HONEY ROGER GLEN
BUBION JUSTIN ARNOLD
2/2/2021: Substitution of Attorney - SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT TO PROPER STATUS
4/13/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO CROSS-COMPLAINANT'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
4/7/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER REGARDING ADVANCING AND CONTINUING HEARINGS SET F...)
4/2/2020: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information
1/29/2020: Separate Statement - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
10/1/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
10/1/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
10/4/2019: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANT JESUS CRUZ'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT JESUS CRUZ'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; DECLARATION OF STEVE LOPEZ
4/26/2019: Case Management Statement
7/7/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Complaint filed-Summons Issued
7/7/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet
12/12/2017: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-12-12 00:00:00
1/17/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-01-17 00:00:00
3/2/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-03-02 00:00:00
Hearing07/07/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearing06/24/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing06/09/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department F; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) (as to the settled defendants Arturo Llamas and Adrian Garcia) - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketSubstitution of Attorney (for Defendant to Proper status); Filed by Jesus Cruz (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by Jesus Cruz (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Dismissal (re: Second Amended Complaint (10/31/2019) as to Arturo Llamas only without prejudice); Filed by PATRICIA YRIGOLLEN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Dismissal (re: Second Amended Complaint filed 10/31/2019 as to Adrian Garcia only With Prejudice); Filed by PATRICIA YRIGOLLEN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by PATRICIA YRIGOLLEN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Order /Ruling on 9/01/2020 Hearing Denying Deft's Motion for Summary Judgment]); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:30 PM in Department F; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Matter Placed Off Calendar) -Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 01:30 pm in Department F, Master Calendar, Presiding; Conference-Case Management - Matter Placed Off CalendarRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2017-12-12 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons Filed; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice-Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by PATRICIA YRIGOLLEN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by PATRICIA YRIGOLLEN (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: VC066406 Hearing Date: September 01, 2020 Dept: SEC
YRIGOLLEN v. CRUZ, et al.
CASE NO.: VC066406
[Remote appearances are encouraged and will be given priority.]
CALENDAR MATTER #8
Defendant Cruz’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
Opposing Party to give NOTICE.
Cross-Complainant Cruz moves for summary judgment on his Declaratory Relief cause of action.
The operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff Yrigollen alleges that Defendant Jesus Cruz converted his garage for residential use without the proper building permits. Cruz leased the converted garage to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff now seeks reimbursement of her rent and security deposits since the premises was untenantable. The FAC asserts causes of action for:
1. Breach of Contract (v. all Defendants)
2. Breach of Implied Covenants (v. all Defendants)
3. Breach of Contract (v. Llamas and Garcia)
4. Fraud (v. Cruz)
5. Fraud (v. Llamas and Garcia)
6. Unjust Enrichment (v. all Defendants)
7. Detrimental Reliance (v. all Defendants)
8. Quantum Meruit (v. all Defendants)
9. Involuntary and Constructive Trust (v. all Defendants)
Cross-Complainant Cruz filed a Cross-Complaint asserting a single cause of action for Declaratory Relief. Cruz contends that Plaintiff is not entitled to 100% rent abatement but is entitled to abatement of the rent minus the fair market value of the rental unit for a garage.
A Plaintiff 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 cause of action. Once met, the burden then shifts to the Defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. (CCP § 437c(p)(1).)
Cross-Complainant Cruz contends that Plaintiff is not entitled to 100% rent abatement but is entitled to abatement of the rent minus the fair market value of the rental unit for a garage.
Declaratory relief operates prospectively, serving to set controversies at rest. If there is a controversy that calls for a declaration of rights, it is no objection that past wrongs are also to be redressed; but there is no basis for declaratory relief where only past wrongs are involved. Hence, where there is an accrued cause of action for an actual breach of contract or other wrongful act, declaratory relief may be denied. (Osseous Technologies of America, Inc. v. Disoveryortho Partners LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 357, 366.)
Here, Cruz does not submit evidence that there is an ongoing relationship or future obligations between Cruz and Yrigollen and that there is conduct of the parties subject to regulation by the court. Yrigollen’s Complaint seeks breach of contract for past wrongs. Cruz’s Cross-Complaint relates to damages for those same past wrongs.
Further, “when, upon such examination, it appears that the cause of action has already accrued and the only question for determination is the liability or relief for or to which the respective parties are charged, 'the nature of the action is not a cause for declaratory relief but is defined by the subject matter of the accrued cause of action… The superior court has discretion to refuse to render a declaratory judgment when it would not be necessary or proper under all the circumstances. (Travers v. Louden (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 926, 930-32.)
Here, Yrigollen’s Breach of Contract cause of action has accrued and is still pending in the main action. The issue of rent abatement is an issue regarding the determination and valuation of damages, not the “legal rights and duties” of the parties. Triable issues exist regarding the determination of percentage of damages. Therefore, summary judgment of Cruz’s declaratory relief cause of action is not proper under the circumstances.
Further, Cruz’s request for declaratory relief regarding attorney’s fees is improper and premature. There has been no determination of a prevailing party on the substantive claims. Cruz is essentially seeking an advisory opinion, which this court declines to render at this juncture.
Motion is DENIED.