Sauceda, Manuel Gabriel Jr. vs. Ratp Dev Usa, Inc. et al

pre-existing condition or finishing the improvements contemplated when the demolition commenced," abandoning the renovation and construction work on the Premises, failing to maintain the Premises in good condition of repair, allowing the Premises to become damaged from theft and vandalism, and failing to repair damage from theft and vandalism. The first amended complaint alleged Defendants committed waste by "failing to properly secure the premises and abandoning the work of improvement midway through the job, ... le[aving] the [P]remises available for intruders and others." (Id. at 1195.)

Further that "Avalon's waste cause of action was not based solely on the demolition of the office space. Avalon also alleged Defendants committed waste by "failing to properly secure the premises and abandoning the work of improvement midway through the job, le[aving] the [P]remises available for intruders and others." The evidence established the Premises had been stripped of copper wiring, fixtures had been stolen, windows were boarded up, and the landscaping became overgrown. (Id. at 1213.)

Further, the Avalon court noted the definition of "permanent" in the context of waste as follows: ""Permanent" does not inflexibly mean eternal; instead, "permanent" means a degree of irremediableness sufficient to cause injury to a reversion interest that will not become a possessory interest until the end of the lease term." (Id. at 1215.) Specifically, "...damage from waste likely would have to be both substantial and permanent, particularly when there is a long period remaining on the lease term; in other words, waste occurs when damage is sufficiently substantial and permanent to cause an injury to the reversion interest." (Id.)

Here, the Court finds sufficient allegations under Avalon to support waste, noting that this is a five year lease which commenced May 20, 2024, was abandoned after August 8, 2024, with over four years remaining thereon. Further, that in addition to the demolition, the Cross-Defendants abandoned the property, stopped paying rent, and stopped paying their contractor, thus causing a mechanic's lien to be filed against the Property and that this has caused a depreciation in the value of the Property. Therefore, the Court overrules the demurrer to the fifth cause of action for waste.

Having overruled the demurrer, the Court orders the Individual Cross-Defendants to answer the third amended cross-complaint no later than ten (10) days from the date of this hearing. If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re: Sauceda, Manuel Gabriel Jr. vs. Ratp Dev Usa, Inc. et al Case No.: VCU325083 Date: July 16, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias Motion: Plaintiff's (1) Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Thiessen; (2) Motion to Compel Verified Responses from Defendant Thiessen as to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; (3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production from Defendant RATP

Tentative Ruling: (1), (2), (3): There are no tentative rulings on the merits for these motions. The parties are directed to meaningfully meet and confer before the hearing of these motions to resolve the discovery disputes identified in the moving and opposition papers for these discovery motions. If unable to resolve, counsel are directed to personally appear for the hearing on these discovery motions. No CourtCall or Zoom appearances will be permitted if the parties are unable to resolve this matter prior to the scheduled hearing. If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not