Judge: Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case: 21SMCV01042, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

CASE NAME:           Kapa Investment v. Collision Craft, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCV00144                                   COMPLAINT FILED: 01-06-2023

HEARING:               Tuesday, May 9, 2023                         MOTION C/O:             Per code

CALENDAR #:         4                                                          DISCOVERY C/O:      Per code

NOTICE:                   OK                                                      TRIAL DATE:              05-09-2023

_____________________________________________________________________________

SUBJECT:                Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Collision Craft, Inc.

RESP. PARTY:        Plaintiff Kapa Investment

                                                               BACKGROUND

Unlawful detainer. Plaintiff alleges it owns the premises at 2001 South La Cienega Boulevard, and it entered into an agreement with Defendants Collision Craft, Inc. and Richard Jay Rogers for Defendants to lease the premises for five years plus an option pursuant to a written agreement, with a rental amount of $24,270, and on January 24, 2019, the parties entered into a written Second Addendum to the lease for another 60-month term with annual rent increases each July 1. Plaintiff served a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit and 3- and 10-day notices to perform covenants or quit upon Defendants, and the periods expired with $317,799.36.

This Motion: Defendant Collision Craft, Inc.’s MJOP.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Collision Craft, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, without leave to amend, as to Plaintiff’s claims for unpaid rent prior to August 4, 2022, and DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claims for unpaid rent from August 4, 2022 to December 31, 2022.

Defendant Collision Craft, Inc. to give notice.

REASONING

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant Collision Craft, Inc. (“Defendant”) requests judicial notice of the Notice of Entry of Judgment and Statement of Decision issued in Case No. 22SMCV01311 (Kapa Investment v. Collision Craft, Inc.). Defendant’s request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).

Analysis

Defendant Collision Craft, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves for judgment on the pleadings as to all causes of action in Plaintiff Kapa Investment (“Plaintiff”)’s complaint on the ground the claims at issue in this action are barred by res judicata.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer has expired. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (f).) Except as provided by statute, the rules governing demurrers apply. (Civic Partners Stockton, LLC v. Youssefi (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1005, 1012.) “Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendant.” (Rolfe v. Cal. Transp. Comm’n (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 239, 242; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).) “Like a demurrer, the grounds for the motion [for judgment on the pleadings] must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Civic Partners Stockton, LLC v. Youssefi, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1013.)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 [court shall not “sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is any reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment”]; Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1037 [“A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment.”].) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

In short, Defendant argues that Plaintiff previously filed an action alleging nonpayment of rent in the amount of $137,799.36 as to the same property, and after a three-day trial the Court entered judgment in Defendant’s favor because Plaintiff attempted to obtain unpaid rent damages beyond one year. (See Mot., p. 2, ll. 7-12.) Plaintiff contends that the present action alleges nonpayment as to the same property and in the same amount, but this was already decided in the prior action. (Mot., p. 2, ll. 13-17.) Defendant also argues that even without res judicata, Plaintiff’s complaint seeks base rent and late fees well before one year prior to filing the complaint, such that there is no basis for Plaintiff to seek rent prior to January 2022. (Mot., p. 2, ll.18-24.) Plaintiff argues the present action is based on new notices that were drafted and served after trial in the prior action, the notices seek different amounts in back rent, and the notices were timely because the COVID-19 pandemic tolled the deadline. (Opp’n, pp. 1-2.)

The doctrine of res judicata is described as follows: 

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. Under the doctrine of res judicata, a judgment for the defendant serves as a bar to further litigation of the same cause of action. To operate as a bar, a judgment must be final, on the same claim or cause of action, between the same parties, and must be an adjudication on the merits. 

(Hi-Desert Medical Center v. Douglas (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 717, 731, ellipses, citations, brackets, and quotation marks omitted.)

Plaintiff concedes that this action and Case No. 22SMCV01311 involve the same parties with the same cause action for unlawful detainer. (Opp’n, p. 5, l. 3.) However, Plaintiff argues this case is not identical to the first action, and there was no determination that Defendant is not still legally obligated to pay the rents owed or that Plaintiff could not pursue another unlawful detainer action.

The present action is an unlawful detainer action based on Defendant’s alleged failure to pay rent and late fees, failure to show proof of insurance, and failure to provide customer lists. (Compl., Ex. 2.) The notice dated July 11, 2022, related to Defendant’s alleged failure to provide proof of service contracts and proof of insurance as required under the lease. (Ibid.) The notices dated December 5, 2022, concern (1) failure to pay late charges in February and March 2022 and (2) failure to pay rent in July 2020 through March 2021, December 2021, and January 2022. (Ibid.) The notices dated December 12, 2022, concern (1) unpaid additional rent for failure to pay additional rent from June 18, 2022, to December 2022 due to failure to provide insurance and (2) unpaid late charges for payment of base rent from April 2020 to January 2022. (Ibid.) The notice dated December 30, 2022, concerns Defendant’s failure to pay balances, late charges, and insurance charges in December 2022. (Ibid.)

Case No. 22SMCV01311 was an unlawful detainer action seeking late property tax payment from 2021 to 2022 in the amount of $815; $2,472 unpaid rent for the period of August 1 to 30, 2014; $2,472 unpaid rent for the period of February 1 to 28, 2015; $2,782 unpaid rent for the period of January 1 to 31, 2019; $3,900 unpaid rent for the period of December 1 to 31, 2019; $1,725 unpaid rent for March 2022; and $2,725 unpaid rent for the period of June 1 to 30, 2022. (Minute Order dated Nov. 7, 2022, attached to Req. for Judicial Notice as Ex. 1, at p. 2.) The prior action was decided on November 7, 2022, and court records indicate the action was filed on August 5, 2022.

Upon review of the complaint here and the judgment in the prior action, it appears that many of the payments sought in the present action are barred under the rule against claim splitting. Under that rule, a party has “one cause of action for all the rent due and owing at the time suit was filed,” and a “claim cannot be divided and made the basis of several suits.” (Lekse v. Municipal Court (1982) 183 Cal.App.3d 188, 193-194.) Because Plaintiff’s prior action was filed in August 2022, it was required to seek all rent due and owing at that time, and it cannot now seek payment of rent owed before August 2022 in the present action.

It follows that the only rent due and owing which may be sought in this action is payment owed after August 4, 2022, i.e., failure to pay additional rent from August 4, 2022 to December 2022 based on failure to provide insurance and failure to pay balances, late charges, and insurance charges in December 2022. All other rent, charges, and payments sought in this action are barred by the rule against splitting a cause of action. The Court need not determine whether the statute of limitations was tolled because Plaintiff’s claims for unpaid rent from August 4, 2022 to December 31, 2022 do not exceed the one-year period.

Accordingly, Defendant Collision Craft, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, without leave to amend, as to Plaintiff’s claims for unpaid rent prior to August 4, 2022, and DENIED as to Plaintiff’s claims for unpaid rent from August 4, 2022 to December 31, 2022.