TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Clare | Matrix’s Demurrer to Complaint for Breach of Lease and Damages is OVERRULED.

Defendant Clare | Matrix shall file and serve an answer to the Complaint within ten (10) days of entry of this order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(j).)

Defendant Clare | Matrix to give notice. 

REASONING

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant Clare | Matrix (“Defendant”) requests judicial notice of the complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22SMCV00465 (Bradmore Lincoln, LLC v. Clare Foundation, Inc.), a request for dismissal with prejudice of that action, a notice of settlement in that action, and a notice of ruling dated November 8, 2022 in that action. Defendant’s request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d). The Court notes that it only takes “judicial notice of the truth of facts asserted in documents such as orders, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and judgments.” (Day v. Sharp (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 904, 914.)

Legal Standard

“[A] demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.) A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (See Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994 [in ruling on a demurrer, a court may not consider declarations, matters not subject to judicial notice, or documents not accepted for the truth of their contents].) For purposes of ruling on a demurrer, all facts pleaded in a complaint are assumed to be true (Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 967), but the Court does not “assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law” (Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 125).

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.”]; Vaccaro v. Kaiman (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 761, 768 [“When the defect which justifies striking a complaint is capable of cure, the court should allow leave to amend.”].) 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.)

Analysis

Defendant argues that Plaintiff Bradmore Lincoln, LLC (“Plaintiff”)’s complaint fails under the doctrine of res judicata because Plaintiff filed an action for unlawful detainer, Plaintiff admits that possession has been returned, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of the unlawful detainer action, and Plaintiff filed this second action alleging breach of the same lease and seeking rent, taxes, and other damages.

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.) Put simply, the notice of settlement, request for dismissal, and notice of ruling in the prior action do not establish that the present action is barred by res judicata. The notice of settlement indicated that dismissal was conditioned on certain payment of past due rent, damages, fees and costs, and returning possession, and the action was dismissed, but this does not indicate on the face of the documents that the amounts sought in this action, specifically base rent, parking rent, estimated insurance, insurance, estimated tax, and tax reimbursement for January through July 2023 were part of the settlement agreement. It is not clear how much was paid to Plaintiff, i.e., there is no evidence that the settlement satisfied all of the obligations alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, Defendant Clare | Matrix’s Demurrer to Complaint for Breach of Lease and Damages is OVERRULED. Defendant Clare | Matrix shall file and serve an answer to the Complaint within ten (10) days of entry of this order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(j).)