North 7th Street Associates v. Constante

Filed 11/16/16

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTH 7TH STREET ASSOCIATES, ) BV 031357 ) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) Central Trial Court ) v. ) No. 14U14148 ) GUILLERMO CONSTANTE, ) ) Defendant and Respondent. ) OPINION )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Deborah H. Christian, Judge. Affirmed. Allen R. King, Law Office of Allen R. King, for Plaintiff and Appellant North 7th Street Associates. Andrew Kazakes, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, for Defendant and Respondent Guillermo Constante. * * *

1

Plaintiff North 7th Street Associates appeals the unlawful detainer summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Guillermo Constante. Plaintiff’s principal contention is that it was entitled to recover possession of the premises, even though it could not be awarded past- due rent because the premises did not have the required permits or certificate of occupancy. We affirm the judgment for the reasons discussed below. BACKGROUND On November 3, 2014, plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer complaint alleging the following: that on an unknown date, defendant took possession of the premises at 1442 Alvarado Terrace, #2, in Los Angeles, pursuant to an oral month-to-month rental agreement; that defendant agreed to pay $166.95 monthly on the first of each month; that defendant was served with a three-day notice to pay or quit, alleging past-due rent of $739.35; and that the three-day notice period expired on August 25, 2014, without defendant paying the arrearage or vacating the premises. Plaintiff sought possession of the premises, forfeiture of the rental agreement, past-due rent, damages, and attorney fees. On November 12, 2014, defendant filed an answer generally denying the allegations of the complaint. The following day, he filed an amended answer which alleged various affirmative defenses, including that the notice overstated the amount of past-due rent, and that the eviction failed to comply with several provisions of the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (LARSO). On December 22, 2014, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in which he contended that the three-day notice overstated the amount of back rent because defendant had made but not been given proper credit for past payments, and because the rent had been increased in violation of LARSO. Plaintiff filed an opposition, and the motion was heard and denied on December 30, 2014. On April 9, 2015, defendant filed a second motion for summary judgment that is the subject of this appeal.1 In his motion, defendant argued that the undisputed facts established