Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 24STLC03373, Date: 2024-06-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 24STLC03373, Date: 2024-06-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STLC03373 Hearing Date: June 17, 2024 Dept: 26

Rodriguez v. CKCK, LLC, et al.

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.10, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Therefore, Defendants CKCK, LLC and Garo Korounian’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. DEFENDANTS ARE TO FILE AND SERVE A PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On May 10, 2024, Plaintiff Enjoli Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action against Defendants CKCK, LLC and Garo Korounian (“Defendants”). The First Amended Complaint was filed on May 22, 2024. Defendants filed the instant Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint on May 23, 2024. Plaintiff filed an opposition (entitled “reply”) on June 5, 2024.

Discussion

The Demurrer is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. (Demurrer, Hillel Decl. ¶¶3-5.) The Demurrer is brought on the grounds that the First Amened Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) The First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract and “other.”

Allegations in the First Amended Complaint

The First Amended Complaint is not a model of clarity. On the form pleading, beside the listed causes of action, Plaintiff sets forth handwritten allegations in incomplete sentences, as follows. “Section 4 of Stipulation Attachment 1. Receipts or financial statements to prove anything I have [illegible] recipts [sic]! Garo’s attorney Ben verbally promised my security deposit back or use toward rent [illegible]!! Garo has knowingly lied to the commissioner about not receving [sic] my rent and has had his attorney file a wrongful ex parte on March 22, 2024 retaliation against me due.” (FAC, ¶9.) There are other allegations that appear to allege Plaintiff seeks eviction damages due to breaches of contract. (Id. at ¶10.) In a typed attachment to the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff seeks “immediate dismissal of the Ex Parte and Stipulation Agreement due to the plaintiff violating it and asking that the Commissioner ensure my record remain sealed and allow for this case to be transferred to Stanley Mosk where I have rightfully filed a lawsuit against my landlord.” (Id. at p. 3.) It is unclear whether this typed statement is part of the allegations in this action, or an exhibit of something filed in the underlying unlawful detainer action.

The Court takes judicial notice of the following documents filed in the unlawful detainer action, CKCK, LLC v. Rodriguez, LASC No. 24PDUD01076: (1) the ex parte application to enforce the stipulated judgment, and the stipulated judgment attached thereto; (2) Plaintiff’s response to said ex parte application; (3) the minute order granting said ex parte application; and (4) the judgment entered pursuant to the ex parte application. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) However, for the first three documents, judicial notice is limited to the filing of the document and not their contents. (See Adams v. Bank of America, N.A. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 666, 673-674.)

Failure to Allege Sufficient Facts

Defendants first demur to the First Amended Complaint for failure to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action on the grounds that the dispute in this action over the security deposit is unripe for adjudication. This argument relies on facts outside of the pleading—namely that Plaintiff is still in possession of the premises—to argue that Plaintiff cannot allege a violation of the security deposit. The Demurrer does not cite any part of the First Amended Complaint nor the request for judicial notice regarding Plaintiff’s allegation of possession of the premises.

Next, Defendant Korounian demurs on the grounds that he has no connection to the stipulated agreement, which is solely between Plaintiff and Defendant CKCK. A copy of the stipulated agreement is attached to the Frist Amended Complaint and signed only by Plaintiff and Defendant CKCK (through Defendant Korouninan). (FAC, p. 8 at ¶12.) In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Korounian should be liable as Defendant CKCK’s owner and agent for service. No authority for liability against an individual based on this status is cited by Plaintiff. (Opp., p. 2:13-15.) Nor does Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant Korouninan violated several unnamed RSO law and ordinances have any connection to the breach of contract cause of action. (Id. at p. 2:13-16.) The demurrer with respect to Defendant Korounian is sustained.

The third basis for the Demurrer is that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject of the cause of action. (Citing Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (a).) Lack of subject matter jurisdiction, however, is only grounds for special demurrer. (Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd. v. Small Claims Court (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 643, 645 n. 3; Middlecoff v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1934) 220 Cal. 410, 414.) Special demurrers are not permitted in the limited jurisdiction court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).) Therefore, the Court cannot rule on the Demurrer for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The same applies to Defendants’ Demurrer for uncertainty.

Finally, Defendants demur to the First Amended Complaint on grounds of res judicata. “A prior judgment is not res judicata on a subsequent action unless three elements are satisfied: ‘1) the issues decided in the prior adjudication are identical with those presented in the later action; 2) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior action; and 3) the party against whom the plea is raised was a party or was in privity with a party to the prior adjudication.’” (Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 675, 686 [citing Citizens for Open Access etc. Tide, Inc. v. Seadrift Assn. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1053, 1065].) To the extent this action was brought by Plaintiff to challenge the entry of judgment in the unlawful detainer action pursuant to the parties’ stipulated agreement, the Court takes judicial notice of the judgmeny in that action. Specifically, on May 20, 2024, the unlawful detainer court granted Defendant CKCK’s ex parte application to enter judgment pursuant to the stipulation. (Demurrer, RJN, Exhs. 1-3.) Plaintiff had notice of and made a response to the ex parte application. (Id. at Exh. 2.) This demonstrates that all the elements of res judicata are satisfied with respect Plaintiff’s cause of action in this case seeking relief under the parties’ stipulated agreement. Therefore, the Demurrer to the breach of contract cause of action is sustained on grounds of res judicata.

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.) Here, Plaintiff has not shown a basis on which a cause of action can be alleged against either Defendant with respect to breach of the stipulated agreement.

Conclusion

Court clerk to give notice.