MSJ - Proposed Order

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 CIVMSC 14-00208 [Proposed] Order

Chuck Marshall (SBN 236444) MARSHALL LAW FIRM 2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 290 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 [email protected] Phone: (925) 575-7105 Fax: (855) 575-7105 Attorney for Plaintiffs KEITH PEARCE and JONI PEARCE

SUPERIOR COURT IF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE

KEITH PEARCE and JONI PEARCE, as individuals,

Plaintiffs,

vs. RAVINDRA REDDY a.k.a. Robbi Reddy, and DOES 1 through 100.

Defendants.

Case No. CIVMSC 14-00208 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Date: October 15, 2015 Time: 9:00 a.m. Location: Dept. 21 Judge: Judge Jill Fannin Trial Date: February 1, 2016

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication against Defendant came for hearing on

October 15, 2015, in Dept. 21 of this court, the Honorable Judge Jill Fannin presiding. A

tentative ruling was made available to the parties on October 1412, 2015, and no party objected to

the tentative ruling. After consideration of all written arguments, the Court finds and IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

Plaintiffs Keith and Joni Pearce’s motion for summary adjudication as to the first, third,

fourth, and fifth causes of action is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs are entitled to the

undisputed portion of the security deposit, in the amount of $3,201.

First Cause of Action. The motion for summary adjudication as to the first cause of

action for breach of contract is granted, as Defendant has failed to meet his burden to show that a

triable issue of material fact or defense exists.

The elements of a breach of contract action are “(1) the existence of the contract, (2) the

plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting

damages to the plaintiff. (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)

Defendant fails to offer any arguments or defenses in opposition to this claim.

The court is satisfied that a breach of contract occurred, based on the following offered

evidence. Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a lease agreement on June 27, 2013. (Defendant’s

RFA Response No. 5.) Defendant admits the Lease Agreement is genuine. (Defendant’s RFA

Response No. 1.) The Lease Agreement states “the Deposit shall be refunded to the Tenants upon

the Tenants vacating the Leased Premises and inspection of the same by the Landlord within 10

days of Lease Termination.” (Plaintiffs’ Evidence Tab 1-A.) Plaintiffs performed under the

contract by timely paying all rent and security deposit amounts. (Defendant’s RFA Response No.

6, 8.) Defendant breached the contract by failing to return all or any portion of the security

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


deposit, as required under the contract. (Defendant’s RFA Response No. 11.) .) Plaintiffs were

damaged in the amount of $3,201 by Defendant’s failure to return any portion of the security

deposit. (Defendant’s RFA Response No. 11.)

Thus, the motion for summary adjudication as to the first cause of action for breach of

contract is granted, and Plaintiffs are entitled to the undisputed deposit return amount of $3,201.

Third Cause of Action. The motion for summary adjudication as to the third cause of

action for fraud is denied, as Plaintiffs have failed to prove each element of the claim, and have

failed to completely dispose of the entire cause of action.

The elements of proving fraud are (1) misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of falsity, (3)

intent to induce reliance, (4) justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage. (Lazar v. Superior

Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of establishing their

reliance on Defendant’s false promise to return the security deposit within 10 days of lease

termination.

“A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a

cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ.

Proc. § 437c, subdivision (f)(1).) Plaintiffs’ motion concerns the false promise regarding the

deposit, but fails to move for summary adjudication as to the false promise regarding the rent

rebate. Plaintiffs’ Reply states that Plaintiffs intend to preserve these claims for trial, but reserve

the right to voluntarily dismiss them pending the outcome of this motion. (Plaintiffs’ Reply p. 1,

fn. 1.) Plaintiffs’ motion fails to completely dispose of the third cause of action, and thus, is

denied.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Fourth Cause of Action. The motion for summary adjudication as to the fourth cause of

action for conversion is denied, as Plaintiffs have failed to completely dispose of the entire cause

of action.



Proc. § 437c, subdivision (f)(1).) Plaintiffs’ motion concerns the conversion regarding the deposit,

but fails to move for summary adjudication as to the conversion regarding the rent rebate.

Plaintiffs’ Reply states that Plaintiffs intend to preserve these claims for trial, but reserve the right

to voluntarily dismiss them pending the outcome of this motion. (Plaintiffs’ Reply p. 1, fn. 1.)

Plaintiffs’ motion fails to completely dispose of the fourth cause of action, and thus, is denied.

Fifth Cause of Action. The motion for summary adjudication as to the fifth cause of

action for violation of Civil Code 1950.5 is denied, unless Plaintiffs choose to forfeit their claim

for treble damages under Civil Code section 1950.5, subdivision (l).

Section 1950.5, subdivision (g) states that no later than 21 calendar days after the tenant

has vacated the premises “the landlord shall furnish the tenant … a copy of an itemized statement

indicating the basis for, and the amount of, any security received and the disposition of the

security, and shall return any remaining portion of the security to the tenant.” Defendant admits

he did not provide the requisite itemized statement or any portion of the security deposit within 21

days after Plaintiffs vacated the premises. (Defendant’s Answer p. 5:30; Defendant’s RFA

Response No. 11.)

“If, within the specified period, the landlord has not provided the tenant with a written

accounting of the portion of the security deposit he plans to retain, the right to retain all or part of

the security deposit under section 1950.5, subdivision (f), has not been perfected, and he must

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


return the entire deposit to the tenant.” (Granberry v. Islay Investments (1995) 9 Cal.4th 738,

745.) Thus, Plaintiffs would be entitled to the full deposit amount of $4,100.

However, Plaintiffs additionally claim they are entitled to treble damages because

Defendant acted in bad faith to retain the security deposit. Section 1950.5, subdivision (l)

provides that a landlord’s bad faith claim or retention of all or any portion of the security may

subject the landlord to “statutory damages of up to twice the amount of the security, in addition to

actual damages.” A triable issue of material fact exists as to whether Defendant acted in bad faith

to retain Plaintiffs’ security deposit. (Defendant’s Separate Statement p. 2:8-3:8.)



Proc. § 437c, subdivision (f)(1).) Thus, the motion for summary adjudication as to the fifth cause

of action is denied, as a triable issue of material fact exists as to the extent of damages. Should

Plaintiffs choose to forfeit their claim for treble damages, they would be entitled to the full deposit

amount of $4,100 under this cause of action.

Prayer for Treble Damages under Penal Code section 496. The motion for summary

adjudication as to treble damages for the third and fourth causes of action is denied pursuant to the

companion ruling above.

Prayer for Punitive Damages under Civil Code section 3294. The motion for summary

adjudication as to punitive damages for the third and fourth causes of action is denied pursuant to

the companion ruling above.

Dated: ___________________ ________________________________

The Honorable Jill Fannin

Documents

MSJ - Proposed Order