Roxbury Lane LP v. Harris

Citation: Not availableDocket: JAD23-01

Court: California Court of Appeal; March 1, 2023; California; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Roxbury Lane LP filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Benjamin Harris, who moved for summary judgment, arguing that the eviction did not comply with the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (LARSO). The trial court granted Harris's motion, leading to this appeal where Roxbury Lane contends that, after Harris's failure to vacate by the specified date following his notice of intent to vacate, he became a tenant at sufferance, thus exempting the eviction from LARSO.

The background indicates that Harris had given a 30-day notice to terminate his lease but did not vacate. In his amended answer, he denied the complaint's allegations and asserted that Roxbury Lane lacked grounds for eviction under LARSO. Harris supported his motion for summary judgment with evidence that indicated the property was subject to LARSO and argued that the eviction notice was defective. 

Roxbury Lane countered that LARSO was inapplicable because Harris was a tenant at sufferance and lacked a landlord-tenant relationship, hence the unlawful detainer action was valid under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, subdivision (5). Harris maintained that he was a tenant, having occupied the unit and paid rent, which was accepted by Roxbury Lane until shortly before the eviction action was filed.

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of Harris, with the appellate court applying a de novo review standard for the summary judgment, assuming the role of the trial court and following the same legal standards.

The reviewing court evaluates (1) the issues presented by the pleadings, (2) whether the moving party has established facts that refute the opponent's claim and warrant a judgment in their favor, and (3) whether the opposing party demonstrates a triable, material factual issue when the motion prima facie justifies a judgment. A landlord's noncompliance with eviction standards under the Los Angeles Rent Stabilization Ordinance (LARSO) constitutes an affirmative defense against an unlawful detainer action. Specific cases, such as Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley and Gross v. Superior Court, illustrate that violations of housing codes and local ordinances can serve as valid defenses. LARSO outlines 14 grounds for eviction, but the plaintiff's argument regarding the termination of tenancy after a 30-day notice is rejected. Instead, LAMC § 151.09(A) stipulates that a landlord can recover possession of a rental unit only under specific circumstances, including failure to pay rent, violation of tenant obligations, nuisance, illegal use of the unit, and other enumerated grounds.

A tenant who remains in possession after the expiration of a fixed-term lease becomes a "tenant at sufferance," as established in Colyear v. Tobriner. Such a tenant must pay either the reasonable value of use or the rent rate established during the lease term. Although considered a lawful occupant initially, a tenant at sufferance does not possess full rights, distinguishing them from trespassers. The plaintiff's argument that this status exempts the eviction from LARSO protections lacks support, as LARSO's definition of "tenant" includes various forms of occupancy but does not explicitly mention "tenant at sufferance." Despite this omission, the language of LARSO may still encompass holdover tenants. LAMC section 151.09(A) allows landlords to initiate eviction actions based on the existence of a rental unit rather than the specific type of tenancy. Section 1161, subdivision (5) outlines procedural rules for unlawful detainer actions and does not create an alternative basis for eviction outside of LARSO. The court affirms the judgment, stating that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a tenant at sufferance loses LARSO protections while residing in a rental unit. Additionally, the plaintiff's concern regarding potential anomalies in LARSO application should be directed to the legislative body rather than the court. The judgment is affirmed with costs awarded to the defendant.

Plaintiff contends that the defendant failed to provide evidence of being a tenant who paid rent, arguing that a tenant at sufferance is not considered a tenant and thus lacks protection under LARSO. However, the plaintiff did not supply legal authority to support the assertion that such a tenant loses LARSO protection or that proving tenancy is necessary for the defendant's affirmative defense. The appellate court emphasized that it is not obligated to address claims that lack development or to formulate arguments on behalf of the parties. The document also includes an order granting the appellant's request for the publication of the opinion filed on January 13, 2023, with specific modifications to the text. These modifications include the addition of a publication certification and corrections to references within the opinion, while affirming the original judgment.