2
that his unit was subject to the provisions of LARSO, that it was unpermitted and lacked a
certificate of occupancy, that plaintiff could not enforce any rental obligations for an unlawful
unit, and that therefore the three-day notice to pay or quit was defective. The evidence
submitted in support of the motion included a January 29, 2015 housing inspector’s Notice of
Abatement which found, inter alia, that defendant’s unit (in which he had lived for
approximately 15 years) had been constructed without a building permit, that it was not
authorized to be used as a dwelling, and that no certificate of occupancy was ever issued for it.
The notice directed plaintiff to either demolish the unapproved unit or obtain the required
permits.
Plaintiff filed an opposition in which it conceded that defendant’s unit was unpermitted
and therefore the rental agreement was void and unenforceable. However, relying primarily on
the decision in Gruzen v. Henry (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 515 (Gruzen), plaintiff argued that
although it was not entitled to past-due rent, defendant was likewise not entitled to possession
of the premises.
The court heard and granted defendant’s motion on April 15, 2015. Judgment was
entered for defendant, and plaintiff timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure2 section 437c, subdivision (c), a moving party who
establishes the right to judgment as a matter of law is entitled to summary judgment. “The
purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through
the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact
necessary to resolve their dispute. [Citation.]” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25
Cal.4th 826, 843.)
On appeal from a summary judgment, the appellate court applies the independent
standard of review. (Shugart v. Regents of the University of California (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th
499, 504.) “We determine whether the court’s ruling was correct, not its reasons or rationale.