MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
July 14, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 36 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 12 26-UDL-00484 DICKENS LIU, ET AL. VS. MAUNG SOE NAING, ET AL.
DICKENS LIU ILENE M HOCHSTEIN MAUNG SOE NAING PRO SE
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiffs Dickens Liu and Elizabeth Liu’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed June 29, 2026 is DENIED.
Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452 subd. (c).)
In actions for obtaining possession of real property, a motion for summary judgment may be made at any time after the answer is filed upon giving five days’ notice, and shall be granted or denied on the same basis as a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1170.7.) Opposition may be made orally at the hearing or in writing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.135(b).)
Code Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(1) provides that a motion for summary judgment “shall be supported by affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken.” Under Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, the party moving for summary judgment has the burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there is no triable issue of any material fact. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to make a prima facie showing that there is a triable issue of material fact. (Id. at pp. 850-851;
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
“[A] person who holds over and continues in possession of ... real property after a three-day written notice to quit the property has been served upon the person, ... may be removed therefrom as prescribed in this chapter ... (2) Where the property has been sold pursuant to a writ of sale, upon the foreclosure by proceedings taken as prescribed in this code of a mortgage, or under an express power of sale contained therein, executed by such person, or a person under whom such person claims, and the title under the foreclosure has been duly perfected.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161a, subd. (b)(2).)
Plaintiffs’ Motion relies on the RJN and its exhibits and plaintiff Dickens Liu Declaration, filed June 29, 2026. The evidence pertains to a Trustee’s Sale of the Property and Plaintiffs’ later purchase of the property at auction.
While Plaintiffs contend that “Plaintiff served Defendant with a three-day written notice to quit on April 14, 2026, which was served by substituted service and mailing on April 15, 2026 in
July 14, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 37 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ compliance with statutory requirements.” (MP&A ISO Motion, at p. 3:13-15), this statement is not supported by any admissible evidence in the Liu Declaration, in Plaintiffs’ RJN, or otherwise. No citation to any evidence is provided. The same is true of Plaintiff’s contentions that Defendants did not vacate the property and that they remain in possession.
Plaintiffs therefore have not met their initial burden to establish that there is no triable issue of any material fact or that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Since they have not met their initial burden, it is immaterial that defendant has not submitted opposition because the burden has not shifted. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 845 [“Initially, the moving party bears a burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact. If he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift,...”].)
The Motion is accordingly DENIED.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiffs shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.