Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Harbor View Hills Community Assoc. v. IRCJ Holdings LLC, Date: 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling

The Demurrer of Defendant, IRCJ Holdings, LLC (“Defendant”) to the Complaint of Plaintiff, Harbor View Hills Community Association (“Plaintiff”) is OVERRULED.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice (“RJN”) is granted as to the existence of and legal effects of the records, but not as to the truth of any disputed facts asserted therein. (Ev. Code §452(d); Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264; Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482.)

Defendant argues that the current litigation is barred based on the principle of res judicata due to Plaintiff’s filing of the case, Harbor View Hills Community Association v. IRCJ Holdings, LLC, Case No. 30-2021-01238179 (the “First Action”) on December 27, 2021, and the subsequent Judgment Re Permanent Injunction obtained in the First Action on February 22, 2022. (Exhs. A and C to RJN, respectively.)

Res judicata, also referred to as “claim preclusion,” prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them. (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 820.) The doctrine is intended to promote judicial economy by precluding piecemeal litigation of claims. (Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 897.) Res judicata applies if “(1) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; (2) the present proceeding is on the same cause of action as the prior proceeding; and (3) the parties in the present proceeding or parties in privity with them were parties to the prior proceeding.” (Federation of Hillside Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1202.) Res judicata bars the litigation of issues that either were or could have been litigated in the prior proceeding. (Ibid.; Weikel v. TCW Realty Fund II Holding Co. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1245-1246.)

California’s res judicata doctrine is based upon the primary right theory. (Mycogen Corp., supra, 28 Cal.4th at 904.) “ ‘The primary right theory is a theory of code pleading that has long been followed in California. It provides that a ‘cause of action’ is comprised of a ‘primary right’ of the plaintiff, a corresponding ‘primary duty’ of the defendant, and a wrongful act by the defendant constituting a breach of that duty. [Citation.] The most salient characteristic of a primary right is that it is indivisible: the violation of a single primary right gives rise to but a single cause of action. [Citation.] ...’ ” (Id.)

While it is true that the named causes of action in the current litigation and the First Action are identical, this does not mean that, for purposes of res judicata, the causes of action are the same. As noted above, in the context of res judicata, a cause of action is comprised of a primary right of the plaintiff, a corresponding primary duty of the defendant, and a wrongful act by the defendant constituting a breach of that duty. (Mycogen Corp., supra, 28 Cal.4th at 904.)

Here, the current litigation stems from Defendant’s unauthorized construction on the subject property that began in May 2022, which Plaintiff alleges is a violation of Plaintiff’s CC&Rs that govern the subject property. (Complaint ¶¶ 15-16.) Said project was commenced after the judgment was obtained in the First Action and thus does not involve the same unauthorized construction project that was alleged in the First Action. (See Id.; RJN Exhs. A, C.) Plaintiff also contends in the opposition that the current litigation involves a separate and distinct set of improvements to Defendant’s property. This contention is not refuted by Defendant.

The proceedings in the First Action and the current litigation thus do not involve the same primary right of Plaintiff or the same wrongful act of Defendant. Plaintiff alleges a different harm in each action based on separate wrongdoings of Defendant. Therefore, the two proceedings do not involve the same “cause of action” as that term is used in the res judicata analysis.

Moreover, this is not a situation where Plaintiff is attempting to obtain relief for the same injury and for which Plaintiff could have sought relief in the prior litigation. As explained above, Plaintiff brings the current litigation seeking relief based on a separate wrong. In addition, the claims at issue in the present action could not have been litigated in the First Action because this case involves a later violation of the CC&Rs. Because each action is based on a separate wrongful act of Defendant occurring at different times, the First Action does not preclude Plaintiff from bringing the current litigation.

In addition, Defendant’s argument that res judicata applies because the relief sought in both actions is the same is misplaced. When determining whether res judicata applies, the relief is not to be confounded with the cause of action, one not being determinative of the other. (Mycogen Corp., supra, 28 Cal.4th at 904.) As discussed, the causes of action are different because they involve different harms and different wrongful acts.

Accordingly, the demurrer is OVERRULED in its entirety.

Defendant is to answer the complaint within 15 days.

Plaintiff to give notice.