Licensor Can't Bring Unlawful Detainer Lawsuit Against Licensee in Breach

What Happened: A studio owner entered into a “License Agreement” giving a production company “the exclusive,” but “non-possessory” right to use the property. The production company defaulted on its rent payment and the owner brought an “unlawful detainer”—that is, eviction—action seeking possession of the property. The production company filed a motion for what’s called a “demurrer,” which contends that even if all the facts alleged in the complaint are true, the complainant still wouldn’t have a valid legal case.

Ruling: The California appeals court upheld the lower court’s decision to grant the demurrer and toss the landlord’s unlawful detainer lawsuit.

Reasoning: Unlawful detainer provides an “expeditious remedy” for the recovery of possession of real property that’s available to landlords if a tenant breaches a lease. The owner’s contention that the agreement in this case was a lease flew in the face of its express language. The court said it would be “hard to imagine” contractual language clearer on this point than that contained in Section 29 of the agreement: “This agreement will be governed by the contract laws and not by the landlord tenant laws.” The court cited other examples, including boldface, all caps language stating that “this agreement is not a lease or any other interest in real property. It is a contractual agreement that creates a revocable license.”

Having stated a clear intention not to be bound by landlord-tenant law, the owner had no business bringing an unlawful detainer action against the production company.

• Studios v. Wonderland Studios Llc, 2023 Cal. App. LEXIS 879