Motion for Summary Judgment
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
26520 KEISSEL RD., LLC, Case No.: LLTVA2506172 Plaintiff, [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TAMMI WILKERSON, Defendant.
I. INTRODUCTION
This is an unlawful detainer action. On December 23, 2025, plaintiff 26520 Keissel Rd.,
LLC (Plaintiff) initiated the instant action against defendant Tammi Wilkerson (Defendant
Wilkerson).
Plaintiff alleges on January 1, 2024, Defendant entered into an oral agreement for a
month-to-month tenancy for $650/month as to the premises located at 26520 Keissel Road #RV-
42 in Colton, California (the Premises). Defendant was served with a 3/30 Day Mobile Home
notice on October 8, 2025. Plaintiff is requesting past-due rent of $6,500, forfeiture of the
agreement, and other damages.
On May 15, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion),
supported by a declaration from Martina Coffelt (Coffelt). Defendant filed her Opposition on
May 22, 2026, supported by a declaration from the Defendant. Plaintiff filed a Supplemental
Memorandum on May 26, 2026, along with a supplemental declaration from Coffelt.
On May 28, 2026, the Court continued the matter for Defendant to serve her Opposition
and present rent receipts to the court. Parties were ordered to submit their documents by June 1,
2026.
On June 1, 2026, Plaintiff filed its Second Supplemental Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of Reply to Opposition, along with a second supplemental declaration
from Coffelt and Objections in Reply to the Declaration of the Defendant. Defendant filed her
Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Supplemental Declarations on June 1,
2026. On June 2, 2026, Defendant filed an Amended Opposition and Amended Memorandum of
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?”
Points and Authorities.
After issuing a tentative ruling and holding a hearing on the motion, the Court now issues
its final ruling.
II. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
Along with its second supplemental brief, Plaintiff files an objection to the declaration of
the Defendant filed in support of her Opposition as the declaration fails to comply with section
2015.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Kulshrestha v. First Union Commercial Corp. (2004)
33 Cal.4th 601. Plaintiff requests the court strike Defendant’s Opposition and treat the Motion as
unopposed.
While Plaintiff’s objection under Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5 is well taken,
the Court OVERRULES the objection as moot. First, Defendant submitted a Code-compliant
declaration with her supplemental brief. While new evidence is generally not allowed in reply
papers for summary judgment motions under section 437c, subdivision (a)(4) of the Code of
Civil Procedure, subdivisions (a) and (b) do not apply to unlawful detainer actions. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 437c, subd. (s).) Moreover, the matter is moot. As set forth below, Plaintiff fails to meet
its initial burden, and it is unnecessary for the court to consider the opposition. (Swanson v.
Morongo Unif. Sch. Dist. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 954, 963.)
III. LAW APPLICABLE TO MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT In an unlawful detainer action, a motion for summary judgment may be made any time
after the answer is filed and on as little as five days’ notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1170.7.)
However, the notice period is extended where service is by mail, express mail, or fax. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 1013; Rule of Court, Rule 3.1351, subd. (a).) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c,
subdivisions (a) and (b) do not apply to unlawful detainer actions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c,
subd. (s).) Thus, a separate statement is not required. In addition, any opposition or reply may be
made orally at the hearing or in writing. (Rules of Court, Rule 3.1351 subd. (b).)
In an unlawful detainer action, the “...only ‘triable’ issue is the right to possession and
incidental damages resulting from the unlawful detention.” (Cal. Prac. Guide: Landlord-Tenant
§ 8:4, citing Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385.) The only damages
recoverable in an unlawful detainer action are those directly related to the unlawful detention.
(Cal. Prac. Guide: Landlord-Tenant § 8:6, citing Vasey v. Cal. Dance Co., Inc. (1977) 70
Cal.App.3d 742, 748.)
IV. WHY THE COURT IS DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment pursuant to sections 437c and 1170.7 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, arguing it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law as it has established all
the elements for a right to possession. The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion in its entirety.1
“The basic elements of unlawful detainer for nonpayment of rent...are (1) the tenant is in
possession of the premises; (2) that possession is without permission; (3) the tenant is in default
for nonpayment of rent; (4) the tenant has been properly served with a written three-day notice;
and (5) the default continues after the three-day notice period has elapsed.” (KB Salt Lake III,
Plaintiff fails to meet its initial burden of proving an unlawful detainer against the
Defendant. There must be an existing landlord-tenant relationship or other unlawful detainer
relationship between the parties for an unlawful detainer action to proceed. (Taylor v. Nu Digital
Marketing, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 283, 289; see also Cal. Prac. Guide: Landlord-Tenant
§ 8:47.) In support of its Motion, Plaintiff submits three declarations from Coffelt. In her initial
declaration, Coffelt states, “On January 1, 2024, Defendant Tammi Wilkerson entered into a
rental agreement with Plaintiff for rental of the RV space. Defendant agreed to pay monthly rent
of $650 due on the first day of each month.” In her first supplemental declaration, Coffelt
declares, “According to my rent ledger, defendant rented the space occupied by her RV in May
2024 and moved on it [sic] in June 2024.” In her second supplemental declaration, Coffelt now
states:
Defendant Tammi Wilkerson executed a space rental agreement for recreational vehicle (the rental agreement) with plaintiff on May 26, 2024. She agreed to pay $650.00 as rent every month on the 1 day [sic] of each month and a late fee of $100 if rent is not paid by the 5th of each month. The tenancy commenced on 1 As a preliminary matter, the Court finds Plaintiff waived any defect regarding filing and service of Defendant’s Opposition by arguing on the merits in its second supplemental brief. (Clark v. Stabond Corp. (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 50, 58-59.)
June 1, 2024. A true and correct copy of the rental agreement signed by the defendant is attached and marked as exhibit “1”.
The rental agreement attached as exhibit 1 to Coffelt’s second supplemental declaration,
however, is purportedly between Defendant and “Olive Dell RV Resort.” Coffelt’s declaration is
silent as to the relationship between Plaintiff and “Olive Dell RV Resort.” Further, Coffelt’s
statements offer different facts as to when the alleged agreement was made, the terms of the
agreement, whether the agreement was oral or written and who the parties to the agreement were.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has not satisfied its initial burden of
proving each element of Plaintiff’s cause of action for unlawful detainer. Specifically, Plaintiff
has not proved that a landlord-tenant relationship or other unlawful detainer relationship between
the parties exists.
V. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment is respectfully DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: [TENTATIVE – NOT FINAL] Hon. Joseph B. Widman Judge of the Superior Court