Triplett v. Decron Props. Corp.

CRYSTAL TRIPLETT, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant, and Appellant, v. DECRON PROPERTIES CORP. et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants, and Respondents.

CRYSTAL TRIPLETT, Cross-defendant and Appellant, v. DECRON PROPERTIES CORP. et al., Cross-complainants and Respondents.

B295026

B299146

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

September 24, 2020

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC664786)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gregory Wilson Alarcon, Judge. Affirmed.

Crystal Triplett, in pro. per., for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant, and Appellant (B295026) and Cross-defendant and Appellant (B299146).

No appearance for Defendants, Cross-complainants, and Respondents (B295026) or Cross-complainants and Respondents (B299146).

____________________

This consolidated appeal involves a longstanding landlord-tenant dispute. The tenant, Crystal Triplett, who is appearing in propria persona, sued for harm she allegedly suffered because of mold infestation in her rented apartment. The defendant landlord, NK Feliz Enterprises LP, and the defendant management company, Decron Properties Corp. (collectively landlord), cross-complained seeking payment of 10-months' rent and penalties available under the parties' lease. Landlord also sought costs and attorney fees under a contractual attorney fee provision in the lease. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of landlord on the tenant's complaint and the landlord's cross-complaint. The trial court also awarded landlord $1,586 in attorney fees, an amount significantly lower than the fees landlord sought.

On appeal, tenant's primary challenges are to the trial court's application of a two-year statute of limitations to bar all causes of action in her lawsuit. Even if tenant could demonstrate the trial court erred in applying a two-year statute of limitations to all her causes of action, tenant does not demonstrate we should reverse the judgment. Tenant does notaddress the alternative grounds for summarily adjudicating each of the nine causes of action in the operative complaint.¹ The "failure to address summary adjudication of a claim on appeal constitutes abandonment of that claim." (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1177.)

With respect to the cross-complaint, tenant contends the operative cross-claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Tenant relies on a stipulation and judgment entered by another trial court in an unlawful detainer lawsuit. The stipulation, however, expressly permits landlord to sue for unpaid rent if tenant sued landlord on claims "result[ing] from this landlord/tenant relationship," as she did. Tenant also argues that the amount of rent she owed was disputed, but her argument cannot be reconciled with her separate statement of undisputed facts in which she identified no evidence disputing the amount of rent or penalties landlord was claiming.

We also conclude the record does not support tenant's argument that the trial court was biased against her. Notwithstanding tenant's argument to the contrary, we also conclude that landlord's memorandum of costs and motion for attorney fees were timely. It appears that tenant's argument is based on a mischaracterization of an order granting summary judgment as the judgment itself.

We affirm the judgment, which includes the costs and attorney fees.

BACKGROUND

At the summary judgment stage, the party opposing summary judgment must cite to evidence; he or she cannot rely simply on the allegations in the pleadings. (Lowery v. Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 119, 123; Kurokawa v. Blum (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 976, 988.) In her separate statement in opposition to summary judgment, tenant relied almost exclusively on the parties' pleadings stating repeatedly: "Not a material fact for the Defendants. No affirmative defense raised here or in Defendants['] Answer to Plaintiff's FAC[;] simply conjecture and/or contains a negative pregnant." Based on the parties' separate statements of undisputed facts, the following facts are either (1) undisputed or (2) ineffectively disputed because even though Triplett purports to dispute them, she cites to no contrary evidence.

Triplett and NK Feliz Enterprises LP entered a lease effective July 1, 2011. The leased property was owned by NK Feliz Enterprises LP and managed by Decron Properties Corp. (Decron). Triplett lived in the rented apartment at Los Feliz Village Residential Property from July 1, 2011 through January 8, 2017. The parties' lease required Triplett to pay rent on the first of each month. The lease also required Triplett pay penalties for late payment of rent. Beginning in July 2015, Triplett owed $2,070.42 monthly for rent. The lease contains an attorney fee provision entitling the prevailing party to attorney fees for any action arising out of the lease.

In February 2014, Triplett complained that she was unable to have full use of her apartment because of a leak in the building. By letter dated February 10, 2014, Triplett complainedabout mold in her lower kitchen cabinet. Triplett claimed that landlord failed to remove the mold.

On March 4, 2014, the parties entered a settlement agreement and release in which Triplett agreed to release all claims related to the February leak in exchange for landlord excusing one month of rent. The settlement agreement provided: "Whereas, a slab leak occurred in the Building on February 2^nd, 2014, Tenant claims that she was not able to have full use of the Premises due to multiple vendors working to remedy the leak and the condition of the downstairs area of the Building caused by the water leak. Tenant also stated that the fumes/odors from the moisture intrusion treatments, plumbing work, drywall and paint repairs made the downstairs area of the Building unusable during the duration of the work." (Capitalization omitted.) As part of the agreement, Triplett agreed to release all claims "related to the slab leak itself and all work resulting from said slab leak . . . ."

On April 1, 2016, Triplett stopped paying rent and never paid rent again. Triplett owed $20,704.20 for unpaid rent and $1,242.25 for late charges when she vacated the unit on January 8, 2017.

On July 12, 2016, the California Department of Public Health (Health Department) investigated a complaint Triplett made and found what the inspector suspected was mold in Triplett's apartment. The inspector "[o]bserved water damage and black spots on [the] wall inside [a] kitchen cabinet." On July 15, 2016, landlord retained a consulting company to determine whether there was mold in Triplett's unit. On July 20, 2016, landlord arranged for a contractor to remediate the affected areas in Triplett's apartment. Subsequently, on July 29,2016, the County reported that the violations had been corrected. The County indicated "no further action required." (Capitalization omitted.) Triplett told the inspector that "the Defendants hadn't completely complied [with the] citation notice [and] order."

In August 2016, Triplett again complained to the Housing Department about mold. Landlord inspected the unit and repaired the areas with the suspected further mold growth. On October 7, 2016, landlord sent Triplett notice that they would enter her unit to take air samples in response to her complaint that landlord's remediation was inadequate. Triplett refused to allow landlord entry into her unit to take air samples.

Landlord filed an unlawful detainer action against Triplett on August 18, 2016, resulting in a stipulation and judgment that Triplett would vacate the apartment by January 8, 2017. Under the terms of the stipulation and judgment, landlord received no damages. Triplett's rights under the lease were forfeited, and the unlawful detainer court ordered her to vacate the property by January 8, 2017. Based on the parties' stipulation, the judgment further provided: "If defendant [Triplett] complies and vacates timely plaintiff [NK Feliz Enterprises, LP] shall agree to waive rent due through 01/08/2017[.] Plaintiff reserves the right to account and offset all rent due through 01/08/2017 in the event defendant brings any claims actions or lawsuits resulting from this landlord/tenant relationship."

After Triplett vacated the unit, landlord hired a contractor to conduct air sampling. The air sampling "did not indicate any significantly degraded indoor air quality."

1. Triplett's First Amended Complaint and Answer

Triplett filed a complaint June 12, 2017 and an amended complaint November 1, 2017 against landlord. In the operative pleading, Triplett asserted causes of action for violation of Civil Code section 1942.4, trespass, nuisance, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional misrepresentation, concealment, and false promise. Triplett alleged that water damaged her apartment causing mold on walls, inside kitchen cabinets, and on shelves in kitchen cabinets. Triplett alleged that, as a result of the mold, Triplett "sustained physical injury, emotional distress and property damages . . . ." Triplett asserted that instead of remediating the mold, Decron painted over it. Triplett further alleged Decron was negligent in allowing the defective condition to continue "without proper and complete removal." According to the operative complaint: "Defendants attempted to paint over the toxic mold, and/or hide some of the defective conditions behind paint, particleboard or other rigid materials . . . ." The trespass cause of action concerned a trespass allegedly occurring on October 27, 2016. Triplett alleged that...