10
extent the “jurisdictional prerequisite” language in the Group XIII decision can be interpreted to
make compliance with section 1962 an element of a plaintiff’s prima facie case, we disapprove
of it. (See, e.g., Minelian v. Manzella, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d at p. 464.)
Defendant Failed to Overcome the Burden of Proof
It is defendant’s contention he proved noncompliance with subdivision (c) of section
1962 and plaintiff failed to present any rebuttal evidence. In particular, defendant argues
Manoochehri’s oral testimony that he gave notice of the change of ownership to defendant was
not admissible to prove the contents of the writing under Evidence Code section 1523, that his
vague testimony was insufficient to establish compliance with section 1962, subdivision (c),
and that defendant’s testimony established essential omissions in the notice of change of
ownership.
The fatal flaw to the defense’s approach at trial and on appeal is that defendant hung his
hat on the proposition that plaintiff bore the burden to prove compliance with section 1962 as
part of its prima facie case. As discussed ante, that is not a correct understanding of the law.
“Where, as here, the judgment is against the party who has the burden of proof, it is almost
impossible for him to prevail on appeal by arguing the evidence compels a judgment in his
favor. That is because unless the trial court makes specific findings of fact in favor of the
losing [defendant], we presume the trial court found [defendant’s] evidence lacks sufficient
weight and credibility to carry the burden of proof.” (Bookout v. State of California ex rel.
Dept. of Transportation, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 1486.)
On cross-examination, Manoochehri was asked whether defendant was given notice as
to the change of ownership and management. Manoochehri answered that “within the last 12
months,” “towards the end of 2023,” a written notice of change of ownership was mailed to him
and posted on his door in addition to the common area of the complex. Manoochehri further
testified the notice contained “all the information pertaining to the new ownership” and
“anything else I [sic] needed to know . . . where to pay rent and everything like that.” The
defense did not seek to introduce into evidence the November 28, 2023 notice of change of
ownership that was attached as an exhibit to plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion for