DICKENS LIU, ET AL. VS. MAUNG SOE NAING, ET AL.

August 4, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 29 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 17 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’s and Elizabeth Liu’s motion for summary judgment against Defendants Maung Soe Naing, Khin Ma Ma and Does pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1170.7 28 and 437c is DENIED.

Parties’ requests for judicial notice are GRANTED. (Evid. Code §§ 452, 453.)

A.

Background

This is an unlawful detainer action for possession of the subject property 3268 San Jose Avenue in Daly City. Plaintiffs were the high bidders at a trustee’s sale of the subject property on November 19, 2025 (Liu Decl. ¶ 7.) The plaintiffs recorded their deed on December 12, 2025. (Liu Decl. ¶8, Ex. 6.) On April 14, 2026, plaintiff served defendant with a 3-day notice to quit but defendants refused to leave and remain in possession. (Liu Decl. ¶¶ 11-15.)

The Court notes this is the second motion for summary judgment in the underlying action. The Court denied plaintiff’s earlier motion for summary judgment on the merits on July 14, 2026. (See Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice and Defendant’s Exhibits, Ex. A.)

B.

Legal Standard

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the papers submitted show there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc, § 437c, subd. (c).) The movant bears the initial burden to show there is no triable issue of material fact as to the claim and that they are entitled to judgment on the claim as a matter of law. (Ibid.)

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, a party shall not bring more than one motion for summary judgment against an adverse party to an action absent leave of court upon motion and a showing of good cause. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd.(a)(4)&(5), emphasis added.) Additionally, “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f)(2) states that a party may not move for summary judgment based on issues asserted in a prior motion for summary adjudication unless it “ ‘involves newly discovered facts or circumstances or a change of law.’

August 4, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 30 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ [Citations.].” (Patterson v. Sacramento City Unified School Dist. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 821, 827, as modified on denial of reh'g (Oct. 22, 2007).)

C.

Discussion

Here, the Court finds this is plaintiffs’ second motion for summary judgment in this action against defendants without requesting leave of the Court to do so. Furthermore, even if a request had been made to file a second motion, such motion would have been denied because it is made upon the same basis, facts and circumstances as the motion which this Court denied in its July 14, 2026 ruling. Nor was there a change of law in the three days which elapsed between the Court’s ruling and the instant motion’s filing date of July 17, 2026.

Moreover, even if plaintiff had sought- and the Court had granted- leave to bring this second motion for summary judgment, the motion would be denied on the basis of evidence presented by defendants. If movant establishes “ ‘a prima facie showing that justifies a [ruling] in the [plaintiff's] favor, the burden then shifts to the [defendant] to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable material factual issue.’ ” (Rehmani v. Superior Court (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 945, 950.) A triable issue of material fact exists “if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof. [footnote and citation omitted].” (Santillan v.

Roman Catholic Bishop of Fresno (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 4, 9.) Upon review of the defendants’ exhibits and moving papers in support, because the Court finds defendants have raised a question of fact regarding permission to remain on the premises. (See Defendant’s Ex. C.) For all these reasons, plaintiffs’ second unauthorized motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, defendants 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.

POSTED: 3:00 PM