Palm Development Group v. Farahani CA2/5

Filed 8/12/14 Palm Development Group v. Farahani CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

PALM DEVELOPMENT GROUP, B253724

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC113887) v.

POORAN FARAHANI et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Suzanne G. Bruguera, Judge. Affirmed. Roger A. S. Manlin for Plaintiff and Appellant. Campbell & Farahani and Frances M. Campbell for Defendants and Respondents.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Palm Development Group, a California Limited Partnership, appeals from a December 12, 2013 judgment entered in favor of defendants, Pooran and Nima Farahani, in an unlawful detainer case. The judgment was entered after the trial court granted defendants’ summary judgment motion. We affirm the judgment.

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends: summary judgment was entered in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c; the trial court granted summary judgment sua sponte without notice and contrary to the prior court orders; and plaintiff was not given an opportunity to file a written opposition or present oral opposition at the summary judgment hearing. To support its contentions, plaintiff relies on the declaration of its counsel, Roger A. S. Manlin. The declaration was filed in connection with plaintiff’s recusal motion. The declaration was filed two days after plaintiff appealed the summary judgment ruling. Mr. Manlin’s declaration discussed the prior court orders and the summary judgment hearing. On June 4, 2013, plaintiff filed an ex parte application to continue the trial. On June 6, 2013, the trial court entered a minute order continuing the summary judgment hearing date. The minute order states in relevant part: “In response to defendant’s ex parte application, the court issues the following orders: [¶] Due to counsel’s medical issues, the court advances the ex parte application and the motion for summary judgment from June 7, 2013, . . . to this date. The court vacates the trial, final status conference, and motion for summary judgment. This case is set for trial/summary judgment motion hearing date on September 10, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 71. [¶] The court, on its own motion, sets an Order to Show Cause why the unlawful detainer action should not be dismissed as possession is no longer an issue, also on September 10, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 71.” On June 7, 2013, the trial court entered a nunc pro tunc order,