Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV15060, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15060    Hearing Date: October 24, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 24, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants Boys’ & Girls’ Club of Santa Monica and Robert J. Sullivan, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Eileen Carry and Sylvia Merino

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

            DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers and opposition.        

BACKGROUND

            On June 2, 2022, Plaintiffs Eileen Carry and Sylvia Merino filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Boys’ & Girls’ Club of Santa Monica and Robert J. Sullivan, Inc. for declaratory relief. Plaintiffs occupy a rental unit owned by Defendants. In 2018, Defendants filed an unlawful detainer action against Plaintiffs; judgment was entered in favor of Defendants in 2019. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants did not seek possession of the unit after remittitur and continued to collect rent from Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief stating a new tenancy has been formed.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it.  (CCP § 430.50(a).)  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)  The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Id. at 732-33.)  The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Id. at 733.)

Defendants demur to Plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground that it is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel or issue preclusion “prohibits the relitigation of issues argued and decided in a previous case, even if the second suit raises different causes of action.” (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824.)  “Under issue preclusion, the prior judgment conclusively resolves an issue actually litigated and determined in the first action.” (Id.) “[I]ssue preclusion applies: (1) after final adjudication (2) of an identical issue (3) actually litigated and necessarily decided in the first suit and (4) asserted against one who was a party in the first suit or one in privity with that party.”  (Id. at 825.) “The identical issue requirement addresses whether identical factual allegations are at stake in the two proceedings, not whether the ultimate issues or dispositions are the same.” (Hernandez v. City of Pomona (2009) 46 Cal.4th 501, 511-2, internal quotations omitted.)

Defendants assert that whether a new tenancy was created when Defendants continued to accept rent was decided in the UD action. Defendants cite to the UD court’s May 23, 2022 ruling on Defendants’ ex parte application to vacate stay and enforce judgment. (Attached to Defendants’ Demurrer.) The Court stated, “Clearly the Court was not intending to reinstate or create a tenancy by ordering the Defendant to pay ‘rent’ which the Plaintiff was to receive as consideration for the maintenance of a stay on execution.” (Id.) Defendants assert that this statement precludes the instant action.