Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV02359, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02359, Date: 2023-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02359 Hearing Date: April 18, 2024 Dept: C

LEDEZMA v. CARRILLO

CASE NO.: 23NWCV02359

HEARING: 04/18/24

#10

I. Defendant SANDRA CARRILLO’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

II. Defendant SANDRA CARRILLO’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED without leave to amend.

Opposing Party to give notice.

This action was filed by Plaintiff CYNTHIA LEDEZMA (“Plaintiff”) on July 28, 2023. Plaintiff’s Form Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) Premises Liability; (2) General Negligence; and (3) Wrongful Eviction.

Defendant SANDRA CARRILLO (“Defendant”) demurs to the third cause of action under CCP §430.10(a) and (e), arguing that this claim is barred by res judicata.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claim for wrongful eviction could have/should have been raised in an earlier filed and litigated unlawful detainer action.

The Court has reviewed the judicially noticeable documents filed in conjunction with the instant Demurrer. An Unlawful Detainer Judgment in favor of Defendant CARILLO was entered on April 3, 2023. (RJN Ex. C.)

The doctrine of res judicata applies when the issues decided in the prior adjudication are identical with those presented in the later action; there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior action; and the party against whom the plea is raised was a party in privity with a party in the prior adjudication. (Citizens for Open Access to Sand and Tide, Inc. v. Seadrift Ass’n (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1053, 1065.) “Res judicata describes the preclusive effect of a final judgment on the merits. Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them. Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, precludes relitigation of issues argued and decided in prior proceedings. Under the doctrine of res judicata, if plaintiff prevails in an action, the cause is merged into the judgment and may not be asserted in a subsequent lawsuit; a judgment for the defendant serves as a bar to further litigation of the same cause of action. [¶] A clear and predictable res judicata doctrine promotes judicial economy. Under this doctrine, all claims based on the same cause of action must be decided in a single suit; if not brought initially, they may not be raised at a later date. Res judicata precludes piecemeal litigation by splitting a single cause o faction or relitigation of the same cause of action in a different legal theory or for different relief.” (Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 897.)

A judgment in an unlawful detainer action has a collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent action only as to those issues litigated and determined in the prior action. The party asserting the collateral estoppel has the burden to prove from the record of the prior action that the issue was actually litigated and determined. (Landeros v. Pankey (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1167, 1171.)

Here, Plaintiff is bound by the unlawful detainer Judgment. Accordingly, her claim to the right of possession of the Subject Premises has already been adjudicated in the unlawful detainer action and is res judicata as to her claim in this lawsuit that she was wrongfully evicted. “An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding ordinarily limited to resolution of the question of possession. Accordingly, it is true that any judgment arising therefrom is generally given limited res judicata effect.” (Malkoskie v. Option One Mortgage Corp. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 968, 973.)

The demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Generally, leave to amend is allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) Plaintiff has not demonstrated that leave to amend would be successful.

The Motion to Strike the Third Amended Complaint is rendered MOOT by the Court’s ruling above.

The Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is GRANTED without leave to amend, where these damages are sought in conjunction with the claim for Wrongful Eviction.