TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Danyel Benhaghnazar and Stella Yaghoubzadeh’s Motion for Dismissal of This Matter by the Court Because This Matter Was Settled on July 24, 2023 is DENIED.

Defendants Danyel Benhaghnazar and Stella Yaghoubzadeh to give notice.

REASONING

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff Jonathan Shapiro (“Plaintiff”) requests judicial notice of Plaintiff’s complaint in this action, Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23SMUD01004, and the unlawful detainer stipulated judgment from the same action. Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).

Analysis

Defendants Danyel Benhaghnazar and Stella Yaghoubzadeh (“Defendants”) move the Court for an order dismissing this action on the ground that this action was settled. Defendants point to a stipulated judgment entered in “the companion case,” Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23SMUD01004 (Shapiro v. Benhaghnazar); however, the Court notes that Case No. 23SMUD01004 is neither related to nor consolidated with the present action, such that labeling the other action a “companion case” is a misnomer. Upon reference to the stipulated judgment in Case No. 23SMUD01004, it remains unclear to the Court that the present action was settled as part of that stipulated judgment. The stipulated judgment states that Plaintiff is awarded possession of the premises at issue in this action, Defendants’ rights under the lease were forfeited, and Plaintiff receives no past-due rent or holdover damages. (See Mot., Bekeris Decl. ¶ 9, Ex. 1.)

The settlement agreement does not indicate that it relates to the same time period at issue in the present action. Plaintiff has provided the complaint from Case No. 23SMUD01004 with his opposition to this motion, and the complaint indicates that the other action sought unpaid rent for the month of April 2023 only. (Opp’n, Sheffield Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. B, at Ex. 2.) The present action seeks unpaid rent for the months of April 2020 to January 2021, totaling $110,000.00 due, and from February 2021 to November 2021, totaling $120,950.00 due, with a credit of $13,750. (Compl. ¶¶ 9-11.) There is no basis to conclude that the stipulated judgment from Case No. 23SMUD01004 intended to settle Plaintiff’s claims for unpaid rent for the months of April 2020 to January 2021 and from February 2021 to November 2021 when there is no such indication in the stipulated judgment that any action was settled besides Case No. 23SMUD01004, and there is no statement that the stipulated judgment concerned any period other than that at issue in Case No. 23SMUD01004 or sought to settle all claims for unpaid rent.

While Defendants make no argument here as to the res judicata effect of the stipulated judgment, the Court notes that an unlawful detainer judgment does not preclude a separate civil action for unpaid rent that is not recoverable in an unlawful detainer proceeding where the unpaid rent accrued more than one year prior to the three-day notice at issue in the unlawful detainer action. (See Hong Sang Market, Inc. v. Peng (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 474, 492 [“Because a court has no jurisdiction to award more than one year’s back-due rent in an unlawful detainer action, res judicata principles suggest that an unlawful detainer judgment should not preclude a separate, civil action for back-due rent that is not recoverable in an unlawful detainer proceeding”].) Thus, Plaintiff’s action here is not barred by the separate unlawful detainer action by res judicata principles. Defendants have failed to present a cognizable basis for dismissing the present action. Accordingly, Defendants Danyel Benhaghnazar and Stella Yaghoubzadeh’s Motion for Dismissal of This Matter by the Court Because This Matter Was Settled on July 24, 2023 is DENIED.