Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV18345, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18345    Hearing Date: October 3, 2022    Dept: 56

CASE NO.: 22STCV18345

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEMURRER

MEGAN O’BRIEN, Plaintiff,

vs.

HOSSEIN ASILI, et al.,

Defendants.

Date: October  3, 2022

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

Judge: Holly J. Fujie


MOVING PARTY:

Defendant Hossein Asili (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY:

Plaintiff

The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a landlord/tenant relationship. On June 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) alleging: (1) breach of the implied warranty of habitability; (2) breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3) violation of statutory duty (failure to return security deposit); (4) unfair trade and business practices; (5) nuisance; (6) constructive eviction; (7) violation of Civil Code section 1942.3; and (8) breach of statutory duty under Civil Code section 1950.5.

The relevant allegations are as follows: On or about August 3, 2020, Plaintiff entered into a written lease agreement (the “Lease”) with Moving Defendant to lease a guest house on property owned by Moving Defendant. (Complaint ¶ 8.) During her tenancy, Plaintiff experienced multiple issues with the Unit, including lack of heat, electrical shorting, circuit breakers popping. (Complaint ¶ 9.) In addition, Moving Defendant refused to give Plaintiff a key to allow her to access her Unit from the street. (Id.) On or around November 12, 2021, Plaintiff reported code violations to the Department of Building and Safety (“LADBS”) and on or about November 25, 2021, LADBS issued a Notice of Code Violation (the “Notice”) identifying various violations of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC”). (See Complaint ¶¶ 9-10, Exhibit A.) After Moving Defendant failed to address the Notice, on or about January 20, 2022, LADBS sent an Order to Comply (the “Order”). (Complaint ¶ 11, Exhibit B.) Moving Defendant has not yet complied with the Order. (See Complaint ¶ 11.)

Moving Defendant continued to collect rent from Plaintiff despite the Property’s code violations and habitability issues. (See Complaint ¶ 22.) Additionally, Moving Defendant did not reimburse Plaintiff for repairs she made to the Unit after his repeated failure to make repairs. (See Complaint ¶ 20.) The conditions at the Unit caused Plaintiff to move out on or about November 20, 2021. (Complaint ¶ 23.)

Moving Defendant filed a demurrer (the “Demurrer”) to the Complaint on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to state facts sufficient to constitute any of the eight causes of action because her claims were fully litigated and adjudicated in a previous lawsuit and are thus barred under the doctrine of res judicata.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

As an initial matter, the Court notes that California Rules of Court (“CRC”), rule 3.1113(l) requires any request for judicial notice to be made in a separate document. (CRC, r. 3.1113(l).) Moving Defendant has included his Request for Judicial Notice within the moving papers of the Demurrer instead of in a separate document. The Court exercises its discretion and GRANTS Moving Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice, notwithstanding its improper presentation. While the Court takes judicial notice of factual findings in another proceeding, it does not take notice of the truth of that finding. (Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 121.)

DISCUSSION

Meet and Confer

The meet and confer requirement has been met.

Legal Standard

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law. (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.) The court accepts as true all material factual allegations and affords them a liberal construction, but it does not consider conclusions of fact or law, opinions, speculation, or allegations contrary to law or judicially noticed facts. (Shea Homes Limited Partnership v. County of Alameda (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1254.) With respect to a demurrer, the complaint must be construed liberally by drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded. (Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517.) A demurrer will be sustained without leave to amend if there exists no reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

Res Judicata

A demurrer may be brought on the ground that the doctrine of res judicata bars an action. (See generally Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 797-805.) Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties. (Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896.) Res judicata precludes piecemeal litigation by splitting a single cause of action or relitigation of the same cause of action on a different theory or for different relief. (Weikel v. TCW Realty Fund II Holding Co. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1245.) For res judicata purposes, the central inquiry is not whether identical causes of action were litigated, but whether a party had the opportunity to litigate the causes of action. (See id.) Two proceedings are on the same cause of action if they are based on the same “primary right.” (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1202.) For the doctrine of res judicata to apply to a subsequent action, the decision in the prior proceeding must have been final and on the merits. (Id. at 1202.) It is the nature of the action and character of the judgment that determines whether it is res judicata. (Association of Irritated Residents v. Department of Conservation (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1202, 1220.) Where a complaint is dismissed on procedural or technical grounds and the substance of the underlying claim was never tried or determined the doctrine of res judicata does not apply because there was no judgment on the merits. (Id.)

The doctrine of res judicata generally precludes parties, or parties in privity with them, from relitigating a cause of action determined with finality in a prior proceeding. (See, e.g., Smith v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1413-14; Wright v. Ripley (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1189, 1193.) The doctrine has two aspects: it applies to both a previously litigated cause of action, referred to as claim preclusion, and to an issue necessarily decided in a prior action, referred to as issue preclusion. (Vandenberg v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 815, 828; Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 601, 604.) This distinction is essential, as courts have oft-noted the “seemingly ineradicable confusion over the distinctions between ‘res judicata’ (claim preclusion) and ‘collateral estoppel’ (issue preclusion).” (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 541 n. 21.)

Issue preclusion applies only to issues that were actually litigated in the earlier matter; whereas claim preclusion extends to all legal theories, proofs, and demands for relief that might have been presented in the first matter, provided both suits assert the same cause of action. (Id.) Res judicata (claim preclusion) bars the relitigation not only of claims that were conclusively determined in the first action, but also matter that was within the scope of the action, related to the subject matter, and relevant to the issues so that it could have been raised and includes matters which were raised or could have been raised, on matters litigated or litigable. (Burdette v. Carrier Corp. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1668, 1674-75; accord Mark v. Spencer (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 219, 229 (noting that res judicata bars claims that parties had fair opportunities to litigate).) Claim preclusion therefore applies as a bar to splitting a cause of action for partial, later litigation, or relitigation of the same cause of action based upon on another legal theory or associated with different relief, that could have been sought in the prior action. (Noble v. Draper (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1, 10.) The prerequisite elements for determining whether a claim or issue is precluded are the same: (1) a claim or issue raised in the present action is identical to a claim or issue litigated in a prior proceeding; (2) the prior proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom the doctrine is being asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding. (Vandenberg v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 815, 829.)

On February 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a small claims complaint in LASC Case No. 22VESC00257 (the “Small Claims Action”). (See RJN, Exhibit 1.) In the Small Claims Action, Plaintiff alleged:

“[Moving Defendant] was my landlord. He had me as his renter in an illegal unit. I have photos and a letter from the city that this was not legal. I also made improvements to [Moving Defendant’s] property. [Moving Defendant] has a $6,000 security deposit from me that he is refusing to return. I have had to spend many hours on this and find new housing. He is breaking his contract and illegally withholding my $6,000.” (Id. at 2.)

In the Small Claims Action, Plaintiff also alleged that the alleged wrongdoing occurred on January 15, 2021. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff sought $10,000 in damages, which represented “$6,000 in rent and $4,000 in relocation fees and travel and time spent.” (Id.)

On March 16, 2022, the Honorable Richard F. Walmark issued a judgment for Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000 in damages and $115.00 in costs against Defendant. (RJN, Exhibit 3.)

On March 23, 2022, Moving Defendant served a notice of appeal, which indicated that a trial de novo would be held on May 3, 2022. (RJN, Exhibit 4.) The Demurrer indicates that Plaintiff dismissed the Small Claims Action during the May 3, 2022 hearing and makes arguments regarding the dismissal’s propriety; however, none of the judicially noticed documents contains a record of this proceeding and the Court is therefore presently unable to assess the ultimate disposition of the Small Claims Action in ruling on the Demurrer.

Because the final disposition of the Small Claims Action is not apparent from the judicially noticeable court records filed in support of the Demurrer and the Demurrer makes no arguments aside from res judicata challenging the sufficiency of the allegations in the Complaint, the Court OVERRULES the Demurrer in its entirety. Moving Defendant is ordered to file an Answer within 20 days of this ruling.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 3rd day of October 2022

________________________

Hon. Holly J. Fujie
Judge of the Superior Court