3
July 2 inspection—i.e., “UNAPPROVED CONSTRUCTION TO CREATE
DWELLING UNIT THAT INCLUDES KITCHEN AND BATHROOM.”
• A July 16 letter from the HCIDLA, upon review of the July 3 tenant complaint, advising
plaintiff of the procedure under LARSO for eviction of a tenant in order to comply with
a government order (including payment of relocation benefits).
• A Notice of General Manager’s Hearing and Notice of Acceptance into the Rent Escrow
Account Program (REAP)3 from the HCIDLA, dated October 31, pertaining to the 42nd
Street premises.
In his opposition, plaintiff argued defendant’s motion was not timely served and, as a
result, plaintiff was not provided with the required notice of five days plus two court days
(§§ 1170.7, 1013, subd. (c)) for the summary judgment hearing. On the merits, plaintiff
maintained his UD action was valid under LAMC section 151.09(A)(2), (3), and (6), which
states three of the permitted grounds for eviction under LARSO—the failure to cure a violation
of a lawful obligation or covenant of the tenancy, nuisance, and refusal to provide the landlord
with reasonable access to the unit.
Plaintiff claimed the lawsuit did not constitute an attempt to enforce an illegal contract
because he was not demanding rent and no cause of action alleged defendant failed to pay rent.
He took the position that he was not obligated to pay defendant relocation benefits because the
basis for the eviction (defendant’s unlawful modifications to the unit and refusal of access to it
for repairs) is not one of the grounds specified in LAMC section 151.09(G) as requiring the
payment of such fees.
The Trial Court’s Ruling
The trial court’s December 10 decision is documented in a two-page minute order; we
have not been provided with a record of the oral proceedings. The court found there were no
triable issues of material fact and identified the following as undisputed: (1) the unit was