Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 23CHCV00171, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV00171, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV00171 Hearing Date: November 15, 2023 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 11/15/23

Case #23CHCV00171

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Motion filed on 8/25/23.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Kmadn Capital Management, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Gidy Akin and Sharon Sharabi

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Kmadn Capital Management, LLC and against Defendants Gidy Akin and Sharon Sharabi.

RULING: The motion is denied.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of Defendants Gidy Akin and Sharon Sharabi’s (“Defendants”) alleged breach of a residential lease with Plaintiff Kmadn Capital Management LLC (“Plaintiff”).

Plaintiff is the owner of the property commonly known as 10112 Hanna Avenue, Chatsworth, California 91311 (the “Property”). (Separate Statement (SS) 1). On or about July 7, 2021, Plaintiff entered into a residential lease agreement with Defendants for a period of one (1) year (the “Lease”). (SS 3). Pursuant to Section 3(A) of the Lease, Defendants’ rent obligation was $3,500.00 per month. (SS 4). The Lease commenced on July 7, 2021 and ended on June 30, 2022, after which the lease converted into a month-to-month tenancy. (SS 5).

On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff caused to be served on Defendants a written notice in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure 1946.1 et seq., requiring and demanding that Defendants quit and deliver possession of the premises within sixty (60) days. (SS 13). After the sixty days elapsed, Defendants held over and continued in possession of the premises. (SS 14). As a result, in or around October 2022, Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Defendants. (SS 14). On January 11, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into an unlawful detainer stipulation and judgment, in which Defendants agreed to forfeit all of their rights under the Lease and Plaintiff was awarded possession of the Property. (SS 15). Pursuant to the stipulation and judgment, Defendants were required to vacate the Property by January 31, 2023, removing all persons and personal property, leaving all keys and remotes with Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s agent, and leaving the premises in a broom-clean condition. (SS 16).

On January 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants for Breach of Contract seeking $17,500.00 in rental damages, among other things. (SS 17-18). On February 24, 2023, Defendants, representing themselves, filed an answer to the complaint.

On August 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants. Defendants have not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff contends that it is entitled to judgment in its favor and against Defendants because Defendants failed to pay their monthly rental obligation of $3,500.00 to Plaintiff from September 1, 2022 to January 31, 2023, in the total amount of $17,500.00. (Wazana Decl. ¶4). Plaintiff further contends that Defendants failed to leave the Property in broom-clean condition upon vacating the Property on January 31, 2023 as required under the Lease (Wazana Decl. ¶5, Ex.C). Plaintiff contends that it was forced to pay $3,500.00 in cleanup and repair costs for which Plaintiff kept Defendants’ $3,500.00 security deposit leaving total damages of $17,500.00. (Wazana Decl.¶¶4-6, Ex.C).

Res judicata precludes a party from again litigating any claim or defense that has been or could have been litigated in a prior adversary hearing. Full and fair litigation of a claim or defense will result in a conclusive judgment on issues material to that claim or defense and matters directly related thereto cannot be adjudicated a second time in a subsequent action. See Vella (1977) 20 C3d 251, 256-257; DKN Holdings LLC (2015) 61 C4th 813, 824.

In unlawful detainer actions where rent is due monthly, a right of action accrues upon each installment when it becomes due. However, landlords suing for accrued rent have only one cause of action for all rent due and owing at the time the complaint is filed. A separate or subsequent action to recover past-due rent that could have been recovered in the first action is barred by the rule against splitting causes of action (res judicata). Lekse (1982) 138 CA3d 188, 194.

Here, the Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment entered on January 1, 2023 between the Plaintiff and Defendants in the prior unlawful detainer action provides that Plaintiff is awarded $0 for past due rent and holdover damages. (See Wazana Decl., Ex.F). The $17,500.00 in damages sought in this action is for rent for the period of September 1, 2022 to January 31, 2023. Plaintiff fails to explain why its claim for damages in this action is not barred by the stipulation and judgment in the unlawful detainer action, particularly when considered with Defendants’ answer which states:

“We were told to vacate by end of January by plaintiff attorney for eviction and we will not owe any past rent or fees of any kind.

We agreed to give up rights so no one owes anything after Jan 31^st upon us leaving.”

(See Answer filed 2/24/23).

Plaintiff also fails to explain how it was aware that it would incur $3,500.00 in cleanup and repair costs on January 20, 2023, when this action was filed, when Defendants had until January 31, 2023 to vacate the Property and leave it in broom clean condition. (See Complaint ¶8; Wazana Decl. ¶¶5, 9, Ex.C, F). Even if the Property was left in the condition set forth in the photos attached to the Wazana declaration, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether $3,500.00 in cleanup and repair costs were actually incurred. Plaintiff merely provides photos and notes without any other supporting documentation (i.e., estimates, receipts, cancelled checks). (Wazana Decl. ¶5, Ex.C).

Based on the foregoing, triable issues of material fact exist as to whether Plaintiff’s claim for past due rental damages is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and/or whether Plaintiff was entitled to apply Defendants’ $3,500.00 security deposit to claimed cleanup and repair costs rather than past due rent.

CONCLUSION

The motion is denied.