8
As explained below, plaintiff established each of the elements of unlawful detainer based
on her theory of illegal purpose, and defendant failed to raise a triable issue as to any element or
affirmative defense with regard to this theory. Code of Civil Procedure section 1161 sets forth
numerous grounds giving rise to a landlord’s right to evict in unlawful detainer, including that
based upon illegal purpose which is found at subdivision 4.6 In addition, LARSO provides that
a landlord may bring an action to recover possession of the premises if the tenant is “using, or
permitting” the premises “to be used for any illegal purpose.” (LAMC § 151.09(A)(4).)
In order to prevail on such a theory, a plaintiff must establish the following: (1) that
defendant used the premises for an unlawful purpose; (2) that the proper notice was served in
accordance with section 1162;7 and (3) that defendant continued to use the premises for an
unlawful purpose after expiration of the period stated in the notice. (§ 1161, subd. 4.) At issue
here is whether there was a triable issue of material fact with respect to element No. 1, the
unlawful purpose. The remaining elements — service of the notice(s) and defendant’s
continued possession — were not contested by defendant.
Plaintiff met her initial burden of proof with respect to existence of an unlawful purpose
when she provided evidence establishing the following facts: that the premises were located
within an “R1” zone within the City of Los Angeles; that defendant was operating a bed and