GRAND PRIX FIXED LESSEE LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS. DENISE WEEKS

9/11/2026 – Law and Motion Calendar Judge: Honorable Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 35 of 38

UD LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2026

2:00 PM LINE: 1 26-UDU-00738 GRAND PRIX FIXED LESSEE LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS. DENISE WEEKS

GRAND PRIX FIXED LESSEE LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY THOMAS S. MCCONNELL DENISE WEEKS PRO SE

PLAINTIFF GRAND PRIX FIXED LESSEE LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff Grand Prix Fixed Lessee LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of establishing each element necessary to judgment and that there is no defense to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) The absence of an opposition does not relieve the moving party of that burden.

Plaintiff has established the ordinary elements of unlawful detainer under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (2). The evidence establishes ownership, an oral day-to-day occupancy agreement, Defendant's failure to pay $44,763 in room charges, service of a three-day notice demanding payment or possession, expiration of the notice period without payment or surrender, and Defendant's continued possession. The Three-Day Notice identifies the amount and period for which payment is sought, supplies the information required for payment, and expressly elects forfeiture of the occupancy agreement.

Plaintiff has not, however, established that Defendant's tenancy is exempt from the Tenant Protection Act of 2019. (Civ. Code, § 1946.2.) The verified Complaint alleges that the tenancy is exempt under Civil Code section 1940, subdivision (b)(2). That exemption requires more than operation of the premises as a hotel; it requires the innkeeper to retain a right of access and control and to provide or offer all of the services and circumstances enumerated in section 1940, subdivision (b)(2)(A)-(E). Plaintiff's moving evidence does not establish those statutory requirements.

The evidence instead establishes that Defendant continuously and lawfully occupied a room at the property beginning in 2020 and therefore exceeded the period of occupancy at which Civil Code section 1946.2's justcause protections ordinarily apply. Although nonpayment constitutes at-fault just cause and Plaintiff's Three- Day Notice adequately identifies that ground, Plaintiff has submitted no evidence establishing compliance with the additional notice requirements of Civil Code section 1946.2, subdivision (f). Section 1946.2,

9/11/2026 – Law and Motion Calendar Judge: Honorable Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 36 of 38

subdivision (g), provides that an owner's failure to comply with the section renders the written termination notice void.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not carried its initial burden of establishing either that the tenancy is exempt from Civil Code section 1946.2 or, alternatively, that Plaintiff complied with the requirements applicable to a covered tenancy. Summary judgment is therefore DENIED.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant 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. The Court directs the parties to San Mateo County Superior Court Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) regarding the wording of proposed orders.