4
on the basis that there was “no material issue of fact to be tried.”4 The minute order further
noted Foster stated in his declaration he submitted a money order for $800 to plaintiff’s
property manager, yet “we are not given a copy of any money order or other negotiable
instrument and defendant does not say that the money order was marked in any way restricting
payment to the balance on the security deposit. In any event, as argued by plaintiff, this
argument is outside the issues raised by the answer.” On August 22, the court issued an order
noting the motion for summary judgment had been granted and good cause existed for entry of
a judgment. It directed the clerk to enter judgment in the amount of $5,291.46 in plaintiff’s
favor as against defendants. Notice of the judgment was served by mail on the parties on
August 29.
On September 7, defense counsel filed a request for specification of reasons for granting
summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, in which he asked the court to specify if it found there
were no triable issues of material fact concerning whether the eviction was barred because
Foster was unable to pay because of the COVIID-19 pandemic; the eviction was brought in
good faith; the eviction was brought in a non-retaliatory manner; and any alleged breach of the
tenancy terms was in fact material. Foster received no response from the court. Foster filed a
timely appeal of the judgment on September 22.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to
make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he
carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a
burden of production of his own to make a prime facie showing of the existence of a triable
issue of material fact.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 (Aguilar);
see Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).5) Where summary judgment has been granted, we