El Venenoo
New Member
- Jurisdiction
- California
In an unlawful detainer case , what does it mean when defendant files Summary Judgment??
-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
Summary Judgment
- Thread Starter El Venenoo
- Start date
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
A summary judgment motion simply asks the court to decide one or more of the issues in the case without a trial because there are no genuine disputes over the material facts regarding that issue. One would need to read the motion to see what issue(s) the defendant is asking the court to rule upon.
If you are the landlord then you ought to have an attorney handling the unlawful detainer case for you. If you screw it up, you can lose and have to restart the process all over again. Especially in California, which is notably more tenant friendly than most any other state, landlords really need to be sure they understand the process well and follow all the rules exactly to ensure they can succeed in getting that tenant out.
Zigner
Well-Known Member
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
Depends on what the ruling was in the UD judgment. Details would help.
At any rate, probably should have been done as a counter-suit to the UD.
zddoodah
Well-Known Member
The defendant would not "file[] Summary Judgment." Rather, the defendant would file a motion for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment is a request that the court enter judgment in the moving party's favor because there are not triable issues of material fact. This should be ascertainable from the face of the moving papers, however, so I'm wondering if there was more to your question.
Anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time. Unless you want to provide some detail and relevant facts about these alleged "damages done to [the tenants] by [the landlord] and his agent," there isn't much of anything anyone can tell you about the tenants' possibility of succeeding.
Anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time. Unless you want to provide some detail and relevant facts about these alleged "damages done to [the tenants] by [the landlord] and his agent," there isn't much of anything anyone can tell you about the tenants' possibility of succeeding.
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
A motion for summary judgment and a counter-claim are two very different things. As we have no idea what the defendant was hoping to accomplish with the filing I wonder how you can possibly conclude it should have been done as a counter-claim?
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
OP alludes to damages done by the LL and agent. Upon being served the UD, those damages should have been addressed by a counter-claim while defending against the UD. Of course, that's just me speculating without having any details but it seems to make sense.
Tax Counsel
Well-Known Member
Actually, no, a claim for those damages must be brought in a separate action. The current action is an unlawful detainer case, which is supposed to be an expedited proceeding to recover possession of the premises. Bringing counterclaims would slow that process down for matters unrelated to possession, which works against the purpose of the proceeding. Thus, as a California Appeals court explained:
(1) It is the general rule that neither a counterclaim nor cross- complaint is permissible in an action in unlawful detainer. The reason for the rule is that since the action is a summary proceeding designed especially for the purpose of a speedy means of recovering possession of real property, tenants withholding the premises in violation of the covenants of their lease cannot through means of a cross-complaint or counterclaim frustrate the extraordinary remedy provided by the statute. (Smith v. Whyers, 64 Cal.App. 193, 194 [221 P. 387]; Servais v. Klein, 112 Cal.App. 26, 33-34 [296 P. 123]; Heller v. Melliday, 60 Cal.App.2d 689, 696 [141 P.2d 447.) (2) This rule, however, is subject to the exception that a counterclaim or cross-complaint may be maintained where it appears that prior to the joining of the issues of fact the tenant has voluntarily surrendered possession of the premises and the issue of possession is thus removed from the case. Heller v. Melliday, supra; Servais v. Klein, supra.
D'Amico v. Riedel, 95 Cal. App. 2d 6, 8, 212 P.2d 52 (1949). So unless the tenant has already surrendered the premises, in which case it really isn't an unlawful detainer case anymore, the tenant cannot bring a counterclaim in this action.
Last edited:
adjusterjack
Super Moderator
Thanks, I rely on you to set me straight. 
Share this page
