TENTATIVE RULING
The Court may require briefing on one issue that will be further address at the hearing.  

Defendant Collision Craft, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, without leave to amend.

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. Defendant also argues that the three-day notices attached to Plaintiff’s complaint establish that Plaintiff seeking unpaid rent for periods of time more than one year before the filing of this action on January 6, 2023.

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.)

Defendant argues that the issue of Plaintiff’s right to recover unpaid rent damages for the property at 2001 South La Cienega Boulevard was fully litigated between the same parties to this action in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22SMCV01311 (Kapa Investment v. Collision Craft, Inc.). 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.)

Defendant has failed to provide a copy of the complaint for Case No. 22SMCV01311 so the Court may determine that the judgment in the prior case was based on the same three-day notices. The complaint indicates that the notices to pay rent or quit were issued after the issuance of the prior decision. Nonetheless, this action was filed on January 6, 2023, such that Plaintiff may only obtain unpaid rent for the year prior. Plaintiff’s contention that Code of Civil Procedure section 1179.05, subdivision (c), allowed for tolling is not well taken because Los Angeles City Municipal Code section 49.99.3 related to inability to pay due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which is not at issue in this action. Thus, it follows that Plaintiff was only entitled to seek unpaid rent for the period of January 6, 2022, and after, and only some of the notices seek rent for the allowed period. Accordingly, Defendant Collision Craft, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, without leave to amend