Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00014915-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 07, 2023

12/08/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other Real Property Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00014915-CU-OR-CTL GRUNEWALD VS MCKENZIE [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Kristen Grunewald's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.

Plaintiff's original and supplemental requests for judicial notice of the complaint, answer, ex parte application, trial transcript, and judgment from the related unlawful detainer case (San Diego Superior Court, No. 37-2023-00011681) is granted. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d)(1).) 'A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed.' (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.) To test the sufficiency of a cause of action, the court treats as true 'all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.' (Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates v. Health Net of California, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 994, 1010.) The court shall give the complaint a 'reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.' (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Here, Plaintiff moves for judgment as to the first, tenth, and eleventh causes of action in the cross-complaint, for invalidity of writing, quiet title, and trespass, respectively. Plaintiff argues that judgment is warranted in this case on these claims because a judgment was issued in the related unlawful detainer case that confirmed Plaintiff's right to possession of the property at issue, and by operation of claim and issue preclusion, the result of the unlawful detainer case is dispositive. The court agrees.

First, there is no question that Judge Longstreth's determination that Plaintiff has a right to maintain possession of the property pursuant to the writing (Complaint, Ex. B) bars relitigation of the issue of possession. (See Zimmerman v. Stotter (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1067, 1074.) As such, the cause of action for quiet title as of the date of Gary McKenzie's passing in March 2022 is barred. The cause of action for trespass is likewise barred, as it is also tethered to the date of Mr. McKenzie's passing and is also necessarily subject to Judge Longstreth's determination that Plaintiff had and has a right to possession.

Second, collateral estoppel precludes Defendant from relitigating issues that were addressed in the unlawful detainer action, which was brought by Defendant, and which Defendant insisted on resolving before this case when he opposed Plaintiff's ex parte application to stay the unlawful detainer case.

Having reviewed the trial transcript, the court is satisfied that Defendant had a full and fair opportunity to dispute the validity of the writing that triggered Plaintiff's right to possession, and Judge Longstreth Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3036115  12 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  GRUNEWALD VS MCKENZIE [IMAGED]  37-2022-00014915-CU-OR-CTL necessarily found the writing was valid (otherwise, he could not have found that Plaintiff had a right to possession). As such, collateral estoppel bars Defendant's cause of action for invalidity of writing.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3036115  12