Judge Helen Zukin, Case 22SMCV00903 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 22SMCV00903, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00903 Hearing Date: August 18, 2022 Dept: 207

Background

This is an unlawful detainer action brought by Plaintiff Sarah Paskell (“Plaintiff”) against Defendants Laura Kuo and Ines Ivanovic (“Defendants”) concerning the property located at 11724 Culver Blvd., Unit 10, Los Angeles, California. This is the second unlawful detainer action between the parties. Plaintiff previously brought an unlawful detainer action against Defendants in April 2022 in Los Angeles Superior Court. Judgment was entered in favor of Defendants on this prior action in May 2022 on the basis of a defect in Plaintiff’s three-day notice to pay under they COVID-19 Rental Housing Recovery Act.

Defendants bring a demurrer to Plaintiff’s instant Complaint, arguing Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata stemming from the judgment in the prior action.

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff and Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of certain filings and orders from the prior unlawful detainer action, Case No. 22SMCV00515. Neither request is opposed and both are GRANTED.

Demurrer Standard

When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Wilson v. Transit Authority of City of Sacramento (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 716, 720-21.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleading alone, and not on the evidence or facts alleged.” (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Servs. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) As such, the court assumes the truth of the complaint’s properly pleaded or implied factual allegations. (Id.) However, it does not accept as true deductions, contentions, or conclusions of law or fact. (Stonehouse Homes LLC v. City of Sierra Madre (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 531, 538.)

Analysis

As an initial matter, Plaintiff argues Defendants’ demurrer must be overruled because “A demurrer is only appropriate when the complaint ‘does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.’” (Opposition at 1 [quoting C.C.P. § 430.10(e)].) The Court disagrees. First, failure to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action is but one of several bases for a demurrer specifically enumerated by Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10. Further, Courts have expressly recognized the ability of a defendant to assert res judicata as a basis for a demurrer. (See, e.g., Frommhagen v. Bd. of Supervisors (1987) 197 Cal. App. 3d 1292, 1299 [“If all of the facts necessary to show that an action is barred by res judicata are within the complaint or subject to judicial notice, a trial court may properly sustain a general demurrer”].)

However, “a demurrer based on res judicata is properly sustained only if the pleadings and judicially noticed facts conclusively establish the elements of the doctrine.” (Planning & Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2009) 180 Cal. App. 4th 210, 231.) “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.) Because an unlawful detainer proceeding is summary in nature, it is uncommon for an ensuing judgment to bar a subsequent adjudication of title for rarely has there been “full and fair” litigation. (Ibid.)

The doctrine of res judicata precludes the re-litigation of certain matters which have been resolved in a prior proceeding under certain circumstances. (Brinton v. Bankers Pension Services, Inc. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 550, 556.) “Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents re-litigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.” (Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896.) “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.” (Fed'n of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1202. “The res judicata effect of an unlawful detainer proceeding is narrow, but is not nonexistent. Generally speaking, an unlawful detainer judgment has limited res judicata force because it typically follows a summary proceeding focused only on deciding a party's right to immediate possession of property.” (Gombiner v. Swartz (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1365, 1371.)

Plaintiff’s prior action, filed April 11, 2022, was based on a notice to quit or pay rent served on March 3, 2022. (Prior Complaint at ¶10.) Plaintiff’s Complaint in the prior action sought possession of the property and collection of past-due rent of $37,500 for the period running from October 2021 to March 2022. (Id. at ¶19.) On May 12, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend on the basis that the March 2022 notice served by Plaintiff did not set out certain language in bold typeface as required by Code Civ. Proc. §1179.01. Following this ruling, judgment was entered in Defendants’ favor in the prior action on May 13, 2022.

Defendant alleges Plaintiff’s instant action is barred by res judicata because “Plaintiff is suing for the exact same rent in it’s notice to pay rent or quit dated May 25, 2022 – that is, for rent due from October 2021 through March 31, 2022.” The Court disagrees. Plaintiff’s operative Complaint in this action, filed June 15, 2022, does not contain any claim for past-due rent for October 2021 through March 31, 2022. Instead, Plaintiff’s instant Complaint is based on a notice served on May 25, 2022, and seeks recovery of $12,500 in unpaid rent for the months of April and May 2022, as well as future unpaid rent payments beginning in June 2022. (Complaint at ¶¶10, 19.) The claims raised by the Complaint in this action are thus not the same as those raised in the prior action, and thus res judicata does not bar Plaintiff’s current action. Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED.

The same result would follow even if the Court were to assume that Plaintiff’s current Complaint did also seek unpaid rent for October 2021 through March 31, 2022. As set forth above, the Complaint seeks past unpaid rent for time periods after March 2022. (Complaint at ¶19.) As such, Defendants could at most show that a part of Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. This is insufficient to sustain a demurrer as demurrers do not lie as to only parts of causes of action where some valid claim is alleged. (Poizner v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119 [“A demurrer must dispose of an entire cause of action to be sustained”].) This separate basis further warrants the OVERRULING of Defendants’ demurrer.

Conclusion

Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is OVERRULED.