Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC03063, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC03063    Hearing Date: January 4, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, January 04, 2024

Case Name:                             MONIQUE JOHNSON v. MOSS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; DIONNA NARANJO; LA APARTMENT BIZ et al.

Case No.:                                22STLC03063

Motion:                                   Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Moving Party:                         Defendant Moss Management Services, Inc.

Responding Party:                   None

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Defendant Moss Management Services, Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Defendant Moss Management Services, Inc.’s proposed Judgment of Dismissal to served and

electronically submitted to the Court within 10 court days.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                      OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                      OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                       OK 

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of December 20, 2023              [   ] Late          [X] None 

REPLY:                     None filed as of December 27, 2023              [   ] Late          [X] None 

BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On May 03, 2022, Plaintiff Monique Johnson filed four causes of action against Defendants Moss Management Services, Inc. (“Defendant”), Dionna Naranjo, and LA Apartment Biz (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that on the date of the accident Defendant Naranjo had been storing trash on the balcony unit in which she resided. The trash from Defendant Naranjo’s apartment had collected, was thrown off the balcony onto Plaintiff’s vehicle causing damage to the vehicle.

B. Procedural

On May 03, 2022, Plaintiff filed four causes of action against Defendant for: 1) Motor Vehicle; 2) Negligence 3) Premises liability 4) Breach of Contract.

Defendant Dionna Naranjo filed her Answer on November 21, 2023.  Defendant LA Apartment Biz filed its answer on December 19, 2023.

On November 30, 2023, Defendant filed the instant Demurrer with Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Complaint. No opposition has been filed.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Defendants pray for the Court to grant their motion to demurrer and dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without leave to amend. Defendant alleges Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred under both the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

OPPOSITION

            No opposition has been filed.

REPLY

            No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Legal Standard

 “The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.) As a general matter, 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 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.) The only issue a demurrer is concerned with is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Where a demurrer is sustained, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the plaintiff to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.; Lewis v. YouTube, LLC (2015) 244 Cal.App.4th 118, 128.) However, “[i]f there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend.” (Youngman v. Nevada Irrigation Dist. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 240, 245).

II. Evidentiary Rulings        

            Defendant’s request for Judicial Notice in support of Demurrer is SUSTAINED.

III. Discussion

            A. Meet and Confer Requirement

The demurring party must meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading to resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (CCP § 430.41(a).)

Here the Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a). Defendants’ counsel, Patrick Torsney states that he attempted to conduct a “meet and confer” with Plaintiff prior to filing. (Patrick Torsney Decl. ¶ 1.) Counsel avers that Plaintiff did not respond to the request to the meet and confer. As a result, the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the claims raised by the demurrer, necessitating Defendant filing of the demurrer. (Id. ¶ 2.) Thus, the Court finds that the meet and confer requirement is satisfied under CCP § 430.41(a).

B. Causes of Action

Plaintiff brings four causes of action for the following: (1) motor vehicle (2) general negligence (3) premises liability (4) breach of contract.

Defendant demurs on the basis that Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

As generally understood, ‘[t]he doctrine of res judicata gives certain conclusive effect to a former judgment in subsequent litigation involving the same controversy.’ [Citation.] The doctrine ‘has a double aspect.’ [Citation.] ‘In its primary aspect,’ commonly known as claim preclusion, it ‘operates as a bar to the maintenance of a second suit between the same parties on the same cause of action. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘In its secondary aspect,’ commonly known as collateral estoppel, ‘[t]he prior judgment ... “operates”’ in ‘a second suit ... based on a different cause of action ... “as an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to such issues in the second action as were actually litigated and determined in the first action.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] (Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 797)‘The prerequisite elements for applying the doctrine to either an entire cause of action or one or more issues 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. [Citations.]’” (Boeken, supra 48 Cal.4th 788, 797, citing People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 252–253.) A general demurrer may be sustained where facts alleged or judicially noticed show that plaintiff is seeking relief from the same defendant on the same cause of action as in a prior action.

i. Res Judicata

First, the Court examines if the cause of action raised in the present action are identical to those litigated in the prior proceeding. To determine whether two proceedings involve identical causes of action for purposes of claim preclusion, California courts have “consistently applied the ‘primary rights' theory.” (Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 797) T]he 'cause of action' is based upon the harm suffered, as opposed to the particular theory asserted by the litigant. ... Even where there are multiple legal theories upon which recovery might be predicated, one injury gives rise to only one claim for relief.” (Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. v. Lawyers' Mutual Ins. Co. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 854, 860.)

Here Defendants stipulate that in both lawsuits, Plaintiff sought damages for the April 19, 2019, incident in which trash had fallen onto Plaintiff’s car. (Motion p. 11, 13.) The harm, or primary right, claimed in both lawsuits is damages to Plaintiff’s car. (Id.) Thus, the Court finds that the primary right asserted in both actions are the same and therefore the first element is satisfied.

Second, the Court looks to whether the prior proceeding resulted in a final judgement on the merits. Here, the first action resulted in a final judgment on the merits because the Court granted a motion for summary judgement in Defendant’s favor. (Motion. Ex. C.) That judgment was served on Plaintiff on August 20, 2020. (Id., Ex. E.) Thus, the second element is satisfied.

Finally, the Court reviews whether the party against whom the doctrine is being asserted was a party or in privity to the prior proceeding. Here, Plaintiff is the same party in both proceedings. (Id. Ex. A) Thus, the third element is fulfilled.

ii. Collateral Estoppel

Defendant asserts that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars action in this suit because Defendant is named in both lawsuits and that the second lawsuit raises issues identical to those in the first lawsuit. (Motion p. 9.) Defendant further argues that because summary judgement was granted in Defendant’s favor the issue is barred by issue preclusion otherwise known as collateral estoppel. (Id.)

The Court notes that since the complaint is barred under res judicata there is no need to reach the issue of collateral estoppel.

C. Leave to Amend

            The Court notes that in sustaining a demurrer, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) Here the Court finds that there is no reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action that would not overcome res judicata or collateral estoppel.

            Accordingly, the Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

IV.       Conclusion

            Defendant Moss Management Services, Inc.’s  Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Defendant Moss Management Services, Inc.’s proposed Judgment of Dismissal to served and

electronically submitted to the Court within 10-court days.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.