Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV18345, Date: 2024-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18345    Hearing Date: January 24, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants 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.

In relevant part, the Complaint alleges: Or about August 3, 2020, Plaintiff entered into a written lease agreement (the “Lease Agreement”) with Moving Defendant to rent a guest house (the “Unit”) on property (the “Property”) owned by Moving Defendant.  (Complaint ¶ 8.)  During her tenancy, Plaintiff experienced multiple issues with the Unit, including lack of heat, electrical shorting and 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.  (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 failed to comply 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.) 

On November 7, 2023, Moving Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment (the “Motion”) on the grounds that the undisputed facts demonstrate that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by res judicata.[1]

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Moving Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to the existence of the documents, but not to the truth of the matters stated therein.  (Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 389, 400.)

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

            Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections numbers 1-9 and 12-29 are OVERRULED.  Plaintiff’s objections numbers 10-11 are SUSTAINED.

DISCUSSION

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial.  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 437c, subdivision (c) requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense.  (CCP § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.)  Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.  To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence.  (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)  Courts liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.  (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

Moving Defendant’s Evidence

Moving Defendant presents evidence that on February 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a small claims lawsuit (the “Small Claims Action”) against Moving Defendant.  (Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) 4.)  In the complaint 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.”  (See Declaration of John Fu (“Fu Decl.”) ¶ 6, Exhibit A.)  In the Small Claims Action’s complaint, Plaintiff sought $10,000 in damages based on a $6,000 unrepaid security deposit and $4,000 in “relocation fees and travel and time spent.”  (See Declaration of John Fu (“Fu Decl.”) ¶ 6, Exhibit A.)  On March 16, 2022, the court in the Small Claims Action issued a judgment in Plaintiff’s favor.  (See Fu Decl. ¶ 10, Exhibit E.)  On March 23, 2022, Moving Defendant filed a request for a trial de novo in the Small Claims Action.  (Fu Decl. ¶ 11, Exhibit F.)  At the appeal for the Small Claims action on May 3, 2022, Plaintiff moved to have the action dismissed, which was granted by the court.  (See Fu Decl. ¶ 5, Exhibit G.) 

Applicability of Res Judicata to Plaintiff’s Claims

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.)  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.) 

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.  (Ferraro v. Camarlinghi (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 509, 541 n. 21.)  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.)

            Moving Defendant argues that the claims in the Complaint are barred by res judicata because the Small Claims Action was improperly dismissed upon appeal and the underlying judgment remains valid pursuant to Acuna v. Gunderson Chevrolet, Inc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1467, 1473-74.)

            Strictly construing Moving Defendant’s evidence, the Court finds that the Motion fails to establish that Plaintiff’s claims are barred.  Without deciding the issue of whether the judgment in the Small Claims Action was improperly dismissed, the Court finds that the Motion insufficiently demonstrates that the entirety of the claims asserted in the Complaint are within the scope of the issues and claims raised in the Small Claims Action itself.  While the eighth clause of action alleged in the Complaint for unreturned security deposit mirrors the claim for damages asserted in the Small Claims Action, the evidence of the proceedings in the Small Claims Action does not demonstrate which other claims and issues that arose during Plaintiff’s tenancy were actually litigated and decided.  (See Rosse v. DeSoto Cab Co. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1052-53.)  Because the Motion only requests summary judgment without alternatively requesting summary adjudication the presence of any triable issues of material fact defeats the entire Motion.  (See Homestead Savings v. Superior Court (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 494, 498.) 

            The Court therefore DENIES the Motion.   

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

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 24th day of January 2024