Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 21STCV40908, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40908    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: 207

Plaintiff Jessica Jacobs (“Plaintiff”) filed this unlawful detainer action against Defendant Steven Ray Ritchie (“Defendant”). The action concerns an undeveloped lot of land in Topanga Canyon located at 1870 Old Topanga Canyon Road in Topanga California. Defendant claims a right to occupy the property pursuant to an alleged lease he entered into with the property’s prior owner. Plaintiff alleges there never was any such lease as between Defendant and the prior owner, and that even if such a lease does exist it is void as to her pursuant to Civil Code § 1214.

The Court held a bench trial on Plaintiff’ unlawful detainer claim and on November 22, 2022, the Court issued an Order After Hearing finding in Plaintiff’s favor as to the existence of a written lease between Defendant and the prior owner, and as to her status as a bona fide purchaser under Civil Code § 1214. On December 8, 2022, the Court issued an Amended Order After Hearing, and on December 16, entered Judgment in Plaintiff’s favor pursuant to the findings made in the Amended Order After Hearing.

Defendant now moves for clarification of the Court’s December 8, 2022, Amended Order After Hearing.

Legal Standard

A trial court has inherent authority to control its proceedings and enforce its orders. (See Code of Civ. Proc., § 128 et seq.; Cal. Const. Art. VI, §§ 1, 4, & 10.) In reviewing a motion for a clarification to a prior order, the court has discretion to either approve the clarifications or reject them. (See, e.g., Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 785; Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 185 Cal. App. 4th 866; and Lopez v. Larson (1979) 91 Cal. App. 3d 383.) 

Analysis

            1.         Plaintiff’s Operative Complaint

Defendant asks the Court to clarify what was Plaintiff’s “charge or claim” in her operative First Amended Complaint. As set forth in the Court’s December 8, 2022, Amended Order, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint asserted causes of action against Defendant for unlawful detainer and forcible detainer. Defendant claims he had no notice that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint asserted a claim for unlawful detainer. The Court previously considered and rejected this argument in its December 8, 2022, Amended Order, as well as in its February 1, 2023, order on Defendant’s motion for new trial. The Court’s July 27, 2022, order relating the three actions pending between the parties expressly notified Defendant that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint stated “causes of action for unlawful detainer and forcible detainer seeking to recover possession of the Property, forfeiture of Ritchie’s lease, statutory damages for malicious possession, and attorneys’ fees.” (Order at 6.) The Court thus finds no further clarification is necessary as to the causes of action asserted in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

            2.         Case

Defendant asks the Court to clarify which action it found in Plaintiff’s favor on at trial. The trial took place in the instant action, case number 21STCV40908, on Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint.

            3.         Jury Trial

Defendant requests the Court clarify how he waived his right to a jury trial on Plaintiff’s claim for unlawful detainer. Under Code Civ. Proc. § 631(f)(4), a party is deemed to have waived a trial by jury by “failing to announce that a jury is required, at the time the cause is first set for trial, if it is set upon notice or stipulation, or within five days after notice of setting if it is set without notice or stipulation.” This case was first set for non-jury trial on July 28, 2022, in the Court’s order on Plaintiff’s ex parte application to set trial. Defendant waived notice of the trial setting. (July 28, 2022, Order at 1.) Defendant did not request a jury trial during that hearing or within 5 days of the Court’s July 28 order. Accordingly, Defendant waived his right to a jury trial under Code Civ. Proc. § 631(f)(4).

            4.         Res Judicata

Defendant asks the Court to clarify why Plaintiff’s claim for unlawful detainer in the instant action was not barred by res judicata stemming from the other unlawful detainer action, case number 21SMUD00002. The Court addressed this argument at length in its February 1, 2023, order on Defendant’s motion for new trial, and thus in its discretion determines no further clarification is necessary.

Disposition

The Court has provided further clarification of its December 8, 2022, Amended Order After Hearing as set forth above. Defendant’s request for clarification is denied as moot as to the request for clarification regarding res judicata as this issue was further addressed in the Court’s February 1, 2023, order entered after Defendant filed this motion for clarification.