Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 24STCV17174, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Kunyapat Milone (“Ms. Milone”) and Levi Janthal, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Kunyapat Milone (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

This is a habitability cause of action. On July 11, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the operative complaint (the “Complaint”) against Defendant and Does 1 through 20 alleging causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) tortious breach of the implied warranty of habitability; and (3) breach of Los Angeles Municipal Code (“LAMC”) section 45.33.

On October 8, 2024, Defendant filed the instant demurrer (the “Demurrer”) on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel. On December 2, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Demurrer (the “Opposition”). On December 18, 2024, Defendant filed a reply (the “Reply”).

The Court notes that on January 2, 2024, Department 97 denied relation of this action to a pending unlawful detainer action involving the same parties.

Pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivisions (d) and (h), the Court may take judicial notice of “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States” and “facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy” (Evid. Code, § 452 subds (d), (h).)

The court, however, may not take judicial notice of the truth of the contents of the documents. (Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375.) Documents are only judicially noticeable to show their existence and what orders were made such that the truth of the facts and findings within the documents are not judicially noticeable. (Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 885.)

Pursuant to Defendants’ request, the Court takes judicial notice of: (1) the Complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 23STSC02308; (2) the Court’s June 21, 2023 Judgment on the bench trial in Case No. 23STSC02308; and (3) Goodrich Bros Apts., LLC’s 2023 Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State.

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747; see Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 430.10, subd. (e).)

To sufficiently allege a cause of action, a complaint must allege all the ultimate facts—that is, the facts needed to establish each element of the cause of action pleaded. (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 212, superseded by statute as stated in Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.) “[E]ach evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.)

In testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-67.) Courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228, disapproved on other grounds, Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158, 1162.) A demurrer, however, “does not admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Daar v. Yellow Cab Co. (1967) 67 Cal.2d 695, 713.)

Res judicata precludes the re-litigation of matters which have been resolved in a prior proceeding to preserve the “integrity of the judicial system, promote judicial economy, and protect litigants from . . .vexatious litigation.” (Brinton v. Bankers Pension Services, Inc. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 550, 556.) It “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.)¿¿¿“Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, precludes re-litigation of issues argued and decided in prior proceedings.” (Mycogen Corp, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 896.)¿

When applying res judicata, “the key issue is whether the same cause of action is involved in both suits. California law approaches the issue by focusing on the ‘primary right’ at stake: if two actions involve the same injury to the plaintiff and the same wrong by the defendant then the same primary right is at stake even if in the second suit the plaintiff pleads different theories of recovery, seeks different forms of relief and/or adds new facts supporting recovery.” (emphasis in original.) (Deleon v. Verizon Wireless (2008) 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 29, 35.) “As far as its content is concerned, the primary right is simply the plaintiff's right to be free from the particular injury suffered…” (Villacres v. ABM Indus. Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 575–76.)¿¿¿

In the Demurrer, Defendant argues that the claims and issues raised in this action are identical to those raised in a previous small claims action between the parties. (Demurrer pp. 4:18-5:14.) Defendant provides the May 12, 2023 claim in small claims case 23STSC02308 (the “Small Claims Case”) and the June 21, 2023 Notice of Entry of Judgment and Minute Order in that case (RJN, Exs. A-B.) In the Small Claims Case, Ms. Milone sued Defendant for breach of implied warranty for uninhabitable living conditions from January 2021 until present based on lack of heating, humidity and mold. (RJN, Ex. A, pp. 2, 6.) The court there found after a non-jury trial that Defendant did not owe Ms. Milone any money on her claim. (RJN, Ex. B.)

Ms. Milone brings the instant Complaint, on her behalf and on behalf of her minor child, against Defendant for negligence, tortious breach of the implied warranty of habitability, and breach of LAMC section 45.33 based upon “ongoing problems with mold, water damage, lack of heat, and bug infestations for the duration of their tenancies.” (Compl. ¶ 34.) Although Ms. Milone seeks alternative theories of recovery, this case and the Small Claims Case both involve the same wrong by Defendant, uninhabitable living conditions, and the same resulting injury to Plaintiffs. Even if the Complaint now adds Ms. Milone’s infant son and additional facts about insect infestations, the gist of Plaintiffs action is still that Defendant maintained the unit in an uninhabitable condition throughout the same time period. Because the two cases involve the same wrong and the same injury, they involve the same primary right.

In the Opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Small Claims Case judgment does not have a res judicata effect because the judgment is not sufficiently clear as to what issues were litigated and considered. (Opp. pp. 3-6.) The Court disagrees. The judgment in the Small Claims Case was based upon the May 12, 2023 claim, which asserts the same wrong and injury as alleged in the instant Complaint (Compare RJN, Ex. A and Compl.) Thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred under the doctrine of res judicata.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court