Judge Douglas W. Stern, Case 21STCV43425 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV43425, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV43425 Hearing Date: September 28, 2022 Dept: 52

No. 3 LA Solar Group, Inc. v. Rumina Balasanyan 21STCV43425 9/28/22

What’s on

calendar? 1. Cross-Defendant LA Solar Group, Inc.’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike 2. CMC

Notice: OK

Tentative: Sustain as to #1, w/o leave, sustain as to #2 with leave, 20 days Motion to strike moot.

Tentative Ruling:

Cross-Defendant LA Solar Group, Inc.’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike

Requests for Judicial Notice

Cross-defendant LA Solar Group, Inc. requests judicial notice of three exhibits. All three exhibits are court records subject to judicial notice under Evidence Code § 452(d)(1). They involve the small claims actions previously filed discussed below. The requests for judicial notice are granted.

The Small Claims Case

On April 9, 2021 Defendant Balasanyan filed a small claims lawsuit against Plaintiff LA Solar Group, Inc. (Case No. 21PDSC00689.) (RJN 1.) She claimed that “Defendant owes money because Defendant improperly installed solar panels on my roof and damaged my roof.” Balasanyan sought $10,000 damages in that case, the statutory maximum allowable in a small claims case. (C.C.P. § 116.221.) “Because of the Defendant my roof was damaged and it will cost $18,000 to replace my roof. I would also like the panels on my roof to be removed by the Defendant.”

Balasanyan won that case and was awarded $10,000 plus costs.

“By a preponderance of the evidence, P established D’s solar install was done in a non-workmanlike manner, which thereafter resulted in damages to P (damages to the roof and interior of P’s house, etc.).”

That judgment is final. The judge in his decision noted “As to whether the solar panels stay or go from P’s house, the court makes not [sic] orders at this time.”

LA Solar Group, Inc. has now filed this unlimited jurisdiction case seeking to recover $41,697 on the contract that caused it to install the solar panel causing the damage that led to the small claims suit. Balasanyan has filed a cross complaint which is now attacked by this demurrer and motion to strike.

Balasanyan’s Cross-Complaint

The cross-complaint alleges two causes of action. The first is for breach of contract. It is alleged by Balasanyan that:

“[C]ross-defendants warranted: ‘LA Solar shall provide its services and meet its obligations under this Contract in a timely and workmanlike manner, using knowledge and recommendations for performing the services which meet generally accepted standards in customer’s community and region, and shall provide a standard of core [sic] equal to, or superior to, care used by service providers similar to LA Solar on similar projects.” (¶ 7.)

“Cross-defendants breach the Contract by failing to undertake the installation of the solar panel system in a workmanlike manner. On at least three occasions, in writing, cross-defendant LA Solar Group admitted it breached the Contract when it installed the solar panel system and is responsible for water leaks and the extensive damage inside defendant’s Home. Before the extensive damage inside the home is repaired, it is necessary for the roof to be repaired. In order for the roof to be repaired the solar panel system must be removed from the Home.” (¶ 8.)

Balasanyan then pleads that she filed the small claims case and was awarded “the maximum amount recoverable.” (¶ 9.) She alleges that because of the continuing refusal to remove the solar panels she shall:

“[S]uffer damages, including but not limited to, the cost of the removal and storage of the solar panel system, increased cost of repair of the inside of the home, and costs for substitute housing during the repair of the interior of the home, $5000.00 for the repair of the inside of the home not covered by insurance (the deductible) and storage costs for furniture while the inside of the home is being repaired.” (¶ 11.)

Balasanyan’s second cause of action is styled as “trespass.” She alleges that she made numerous demands that LA Solar remove the solar panels and it has refused to do so. (¶ 13.) The intentional failure to remove the solar panels is alleged to be a trespass. She claims that she shall:

“[S]uffer damages, including but not limited to the cost of the removal and storage of the solar panel system, increased cost of repair of the inside of the home, the costs for substitute housing during the repair of the interior of the home, $5000.00 for the repair of the inside of the home not covered by insurance (the deductible)

and storage costs for furniture while the inside of the home is being repaired.” (¶15.) She also seeks punitive damages for the alleged trespass.

Demurrer

Cross-defendant LA Solar Group, Inc. demurs to cross-complainant Balasanyan’s cross-complaint based on the doctrine of res judicata.

“Res judicata or claim preclusion precludes the relitigation of a cause of action that previously was adjudicated in another proceeding between the same parties or parties in privity with them. [Citation.] 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. [Citation.] Res judicata bars the litigation not only of issues that were actually litigated but also issues that could have been litigated.” (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1202.)

This doctrine applies to judgments in small claims court. (Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mel Rapton, Inc. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 901, 914.) “The burden of proving that the requirements for application of res judicata have been met is upon the party seeking to assert it as a bar or estoppel.” (Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 257.)

Cross-complainant argues this case falls into an exception to res judicata recognized by the Supreme Court of California:

While it is true that as a general rule a judgment is a bar as res judicata not only as to a subsequent action on the same matter actually determined, but also as to all issues that might have been litigated as incident to or essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation and every matter coming within its legitimate purview, [citations]. It is also true that that only is adjudged in a former judgment which appears upon its face to have been adjudged or which was actually and necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. [Citation.] And when it affirmatively appears that an issue was not determined by the judgment, it obviously is not res judicata upon that issue. A judgment is not an adjudication as to matters which the court expressly refrains from determining.

(Stark v. Coker (1942) 20 Cal.2d 839, 842–843.)

Breach of Contract Cause of Action

Balasanyan filed a small claims action against LA Solar Group, Inc. (RJN, Ex. 1.) In her claim form, she asserted LA Solar owed her $10,000 “because Defendant improperly installed solar panels on my roof and damaged my roof.” (Id., ¶ 3.a.) In response to the question asking how she calculated the amount owed, she stated, “Because of the Defendant my roof was damaged and it will cost $18,000 to replace my roof. I would also like the panels on my roof to be removed by the Defendant.” (Id., ¶ 3.c.) Balasanyan won that case receiving the maximum award that the court could make, even though she claimed she had $18,000 in damages from that faulty installation.

Analysis

Balasanyan chose to seek her damages from the improper installation in the small claims case. She sought those damages for the harm caused by the unworkmanlike installation of the solar panels and the harm done to her home. All aspects of the damage she suffered due to the “unworkmanlike” installation were before the small claims court. She was not entitled to pick and choose which of the damages she had suffered she would seek in that action, and retain the other damages for a different case.

By choosing to seek her recovery in small claims Balasanyan opted to forgo any potential recovery in excess of the maximum $10,000 jurisdiction of that court. She made that choice believing she suffered $18,000 in damages. She is now seeking to recover yet more damages arising from that faulty solar panel installation. This is an impermissible splitting of her cause of action.

“It is elementary that ‘[t]he doctrine of res judicata gives certain conclusive effect to a former judgment in subsequent litigation involving the same controversy. It seeks to curtail multiple litigation causing vexation and expense to the parties and wasted effort and expense in judicial administration.’ ” (Nakash v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 59, 67, 241 Cal.Rptr. 578, quoting 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Judgment § 188, p. 621, italics omitted.) Generally speaking, a valid final judgment in favor of a plaintiff merges any claim of the same cause of action in the judgment, and precludes the plaintiff from maintaining any later suit on the same cause of action. (Hatch v. Bank of America (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 206, 210–211, 5 Cal.Rptr. 875.) This aspect of res judicata applies to judgments rendered by the small claims court. ( **156 Perez v. City of San Bruno (1980) 27 Cal.3d 875, 884, 168 Cal.Rptr. 114, 616 P.2d 1287; Sanderson v. Niemann (1941) 17 Cal.2d 563, 573, 110 P.2d 1025.)

The rule against a plaintiff splitting a single cause of action so as to make it the basis of several suits is, in part, an application of the doctrine of res judicata. (People v. Damon (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 958, 974, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 504; Boccardo

v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1037, 1043, 184 Cal.Rptr. 903; Ferraro v. Southern Cal. Gas Co. (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 33, 41, 162 Cal.Rptr. 238.) *908 In determining whether a cause of action has been split, the relief sought by the injured party should not be confused with the cause of action; “[t]he violation of one primary right constitutes a single cause of action, though it may entitle the injured party to many forms of relief....” (Wulfjen v. Dolton (1944) 24 Cal.2d 891, 895–896, 151 P.2d 846; accord People v. Damon, supra, at p. 974, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 504.)” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mel Rapton, Inc. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 901, 907–908 [92 Cal.Rptr.2d 151, 155–156]

No doubt, the small claims court noted that it was not addressing the question of whether the solar panels would “stay or go.” But even if the court had decided that they should be removed (arguably justifying a larger award), no additional amount could have been awarded for that “damage” from the installation. She recovered for all the damages she suffered from the faulty installation.

The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend on the basis that res judicata bars the assertion of the breach of contract claim.

The Trespass Cause of Action

Balasanyan’s second cause of action for trespass alleges LA Solar “refused to remove the solar panel system.” (Cross-Comp., ¶ 13.) She further alleges, “The intentional failure of cross-defendants to remove the solar panel system is a trespass on cross-complainant’s Home.” (Id., ¶ 14.) She alleges the trespass caused her the same damages as she alleges under the first cause of action. (Id., ¶ 15.)

It appears that the same primary right was implicated in this claim as asserted in the small claims case. The description of the damages sought strongly suggests that the claim litigated in the small claims action involved the same right. It was all predicated on the alleged faulty installation. That installation was the basis for the claimed trespass.

Although Balasanyan’s Opposition suggests that there are “changed circumstances” and “new facts” the Cross-Complaint fails to disclose them. On the contrary, the allegations show that the alleged trespass existed when the small claims action was filed, was based on the installation that was the subject of the claim, and the harm suffered has remained the same. Nothing had changed. However, since Balasanyan believes that there may be a valid change that justifies the claim, leave to amend shall be granted.

The demurrer to the second cause of action is sustained with leave to amend. 20 days leave to amend is granted.

Motion to Strike

Because the Demurrer is sustained, the motion to strike is moot.

III. Disposition

Cross-defendant LA Solar Group, Inc.’s demurrer to the cross-complaint is sustained as to the first cause of action without leave to amend. The demurrer to the second cause of action is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. The Motion to Strike is moot.