CAL-AM PROPERTIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DBA SOUTHLAKE MOBILE HOME PARK vs BAI, et al.

25CV109574: CAL-AM PROPERTIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DBA SOUTHLAKE MOBILE HOME PARK vs BAI, et al. 07/09/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by CAL-AM PROPERTIES, INC., a California corporation, dba SOUTHLAKE MOBILE HOME PARK (Plaintiff) CRS# 813778473054 in Department 512

Tentative Ruling - 07/08/2026 Elizabeth Riles

The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by CAL-AM PROPERTIES, INC., a California corporation, dba SOUTHLAKE MOBILE HOME PARK on 02/13/2026 is Granted in Part.

Plaintiff Can-Am Properties, Inc. dba Southlake Mobile Home Park’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

The present action is a landlord-tenant action in which Plaintiff landlord seeks to recover $51,182.14 in unpaid back rent for the period from April 2020 to the end of December 2023 from defendant tenant Zhongze Bai (“Defendant”). Plaintiff operates a mobile home park in Fremont, California. Defendant has rented a space at the mobile home park since March 2016. Plaintiff filed its Complaint initiating this action on 2/4/2025.

ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S MSJ

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

The Court finds that Defendant’s affirmative defense that CCP § 337, the applicable statute of limitations, bars a portion of Plaintiff’s back rent claim, specifically monthly rental debt that accrued prior to 2/4/2021, four years prior to the filing of the Complaint.

The moving MPA at p. 6:6-7 admits that CCP § 337 is the applicable statute of limitations. § 337 provides in relevant part:

“Within four years:

“(a) An action upon any contract, obligation or liability founded upon an instrument in writing.”

Plaintiff presents evidence in the moving papers of a written lease agreement between the parties. (Johnson Dec. Exh. 1.)

According to the rent ledger attached as Exh. B to the Johnson Declaration and authenticated thereby, many of the claims for unpaid rent accrued prior to 2/4/2021. Plaintiff’s moving papers cite to no authority for the proposition that, because Defendant continued to fail to pay rent that accrued after 2/4/2021, Plaintiff may assert stale claims that accrued prior to 2/4/2021. Instead, 25CV109574: CAL-AM PROPERTIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DBA SOUTHLAKE MOBILE HOME PARK vs BAI, et al. 07/09/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by CAL-AM PROPERTIES, INC., a California corporation, dba SOUTHLAKE MOBILE HOME PARK (Plaintiff) CRS# 813778473054 in Department 512 Plaintiff contends that pursuant to Cal.

Rule of Court Emergency Rule 9, there was a stay ordered on all claims for the period from 4/6/2020 until 10/1/2020. However, any claims for unpaid rent that arose prior to or during the 4/6/2020 to 10/1/2020 stay expired pursuant to § 337 when they had not been asserted in a lawsuit by 10/1/2024.

The parties’ respective briefing does not contain any argument regarding what would be the proper reduction to the $51,182.14 amount sought by Plaintiff for unpaid rent claims that accrued prior to 2/4/2021. Thus, the amount of any proper reduction pursuant to § 337 has not been fully liquidated and must be addressed by further litigation of this issue.

ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE MSA

As an initial matter, the alternative MSA is procedurally defective in that the moving Separate Statement does not comply with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1350(b). However, the Court elects to consider the MSA of Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for breach of contract and Defendant’s affirmative defenses presented in the Answer.

1. MSA of Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract.

“To prevail on a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must prove (1) the contract, (2) the plaintiff's performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damage to the plaintiff.” Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s moving evidence is sufficient to make a prima facie showing of the first three elements of a breach of contract cause of action and that Defendant’s evidence in Opposition is insufficient to create triable issues of material fact as to any of these three elements.

However, as stated above, Plaintiff’s awardable damages are not fully liquidated and likely may not properly be determined by the Court on this MSJ/MSA, absent a stipulation by the parties regarding an appropriate amount of reduction.

“A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (CCP § 437c(f)(1).)

Because the amount of damages remains at issue, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s MSA of Plaintiff’s breach of contract cause of action.

2. MSA of Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV109574: CAL-AM PROPERTIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DBA SOUTHLAKE MOBILE HOME PARK vs BAI, et al. 07/09/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by CAL-AM PROPERTIES, INC., a California corporation, dba SOUTHLAKE MOBILE HOME PARK (Plaintiff) CRS# 813778473054 in Department 512 Plaintiff’s MSA of Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses that “any claim of unpaid rent prior to February 2021 is barred by [CCP] § 337” is DENIED. As stated above, the Court finds merit to this Affirmative Defense.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s MSA of Defendant’s Affirmative Defense regarding partial payments of the back rent and accord and satisfaction. The Affirmative Defense cites certain payments made by Defendant. However, Johnson Dec. Exh. B shows that Plaintiff was credited all the 2/2/2022 $18,008.88 payment and each of the ten $400 payments made by Defendant between 11/11/2020 and 6/1/2021. Neither the Affirmative Defense itself nor Defendant’s opposing evidence present any evidence to support a finding that there were other payments made by Defendant that were not credited by Plaintiff in the rent log. Further, Defendant presents no evidence to create triable issues of material fact that Plaintiff agreed to any of these payments as an accord and satisfaction of the underlying debt, where Plaintiff presents evidence it did not make any such accord and satisfaction. (Johnson Dec. ¶ 11.)

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s MSA of Defendant’s Affirmative Defense that Plaintiff is not entitled to collect governmental rental assistance on behalf of Defendant and to still claim Defendant owes these monies. However, the affirmative defense does not allege that Plaintiff did receive governmental rental assistance payments which it is now improperly seeking as damages from Defendant as a double recovery. Further, Johnson Dec. Exh. B indicates that any such payments were credited to Defendant’s rental account. Plaintiff in Opposition presents no evidence to support a finding that Plaintiff received any governmental rental assistance payments that have not been credited to Defendant’s account.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s MSA of Defendant’s Affirmative Defense that Defendant reached an agreement in writing with defendant Xiaoyan Zhao (“Zhao”) in August 2022 that Zhao would be responsible for paying the rent to Plaintiff. This Affirmative Defense does not allege that Plaintiff ever agreed to such an arrangement between Defendant and Zhao, and the Lease contains a non-assignment clause at § 20. (Johnson Dec. Exh. 1.) Further, Plaintiff presents no evidence in Opposition to support a finding that Plaintiff agreed that Zhao would be solely responsible for rent at any time during the tenancy.

As pleaded, this Affirmative Defense is defective. Although Defendant may have a claim against Zhao for Zhao’s alleged breach of her and Defendant’s written agreement, it cannot absolve Defendant of liability for unpaid rent to Plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the Lease.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s MSA of Defendant’s Affirmative Defense that Plaintiff acted in bad faith by refusing reasonable settlement offers during a related unlawful detainer case and pursuing eviction solely to force the sale of Defendant’s mobile home. This is not a cognizable affirmative defense, because Plaintiff’s alleged misconduct during confidential settlement negotiations in a separate unlawful detainer action is not a defense to Plaintiff’s breach of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV109574: CAL-AM PROPERTIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DBA SOUTHLAKE MOBILE HOME PARK vs BAI, et al. 07/09/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by CAL-AM PROPERTIES, INC., a California corporation, dba SOUTHLAKE MOBILE HOME PARK (Plaintiff) CRS# 813778473054 in Department 512 contract claim in the present action.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE RULINGS

PLEASE NOTE: If any party contests the tentative ruling, the hearing on the motion will occur remotely via the court's own video-conferencing system.

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing date.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 512, by email at Dept512@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application.

TO CONNECT TO ZOOM:

Join the meeting using the following link: https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16057661931 Join the meeting by Phone:

Meeting ID: 160 5766 1931

1 669 254 5252, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 1 669 216 1590, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free