Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV01738, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CMCV01738    Hearing Date: May 2, 2024    Dept: A

23CMCV01738 Melody Patton v. Leon Valdry

Thursday, May 2,  2024 at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADING

I.        BACKGROUND

       The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant was wrongfully terminated when she rejected his unwarranted and unsolicited sexual advances and assaults. Plaintiff alleges 12 causes of action for discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, assault and battery and other employment-related claims.

II.      ARGUMENTS

Defendant demurs to all claims on grounds they are barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. Plaintiff previously litigated the claims as part of her defenses to the unlawful detainer action (“UD action”) which was finally litigated in Defendant’s favor.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that her employment-related claims were never litigated. The UD action adjudicated Defendant’s right to possession only.  

In reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiff could have litigated these claims in the UD action. Instead, Plaintiff agreed to settle it.

III.    LEGAL STANDARDS

       The two statutory grounds for a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is either that the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action, or the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438 subd. (c)(B).) A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer and attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters subject to judicial notice. (Burnett v. Chimney Sweep (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1064.)

       Accordingly, all properly alleged material facts are deemed true as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged.  (Fire Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 446, 452.) For this reason, the Court does not consider Defendant’s declaration asserting facts since they are extrinsic to the pleading.

       The Court may not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 638.) Because a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the plaintiff must show that the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.)

IV.    DISCUSSION

In its primary aspect, res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents relitigation of the same cause of action previously decided on the merits in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them. (Central Delta Water Agency v. Department of Water Resources (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 170, 206.) Three elements must be established: (1) the present proceeding is on the same cause of action as the prior proceeding; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the parties in the present proceeding or parties in privity with them were parties to the prior proceedings. (Id.)

The second aspect of res judicata known as collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prohibits the relitigation of issues decided in a prior proceeding. Issue 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." (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 825.)

Neither theory applies to bar Plaintiff’s claims. The Court grants Defendant’s request for judicial notice of records in an unlawful detainer case bearing Case No. 23STUD04817. (Evid. Code, § 452 (d) [permits judicial notice of court records.].) The only issues raised in the  UD action was the landlord’s right to possession of the premises and past due rent. (Defendant’s RJN, .pdf p. 4.) Plaintiff’s defenses in the UD action do not assert any employment-related damage claims.

Nor could Plaintiff have asserted employment-related claims as a defense. Tenants may assert legal or equitable defenses that "directly relate to the issue of possession and which, if established, would result in the tenant's retention of the premises.” (Drouet v. Superior Court (2003) 31 Cal.4th 583, 587.)  As the UD action did not concern issues identical to this claim, res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply. There is no evidence Plaintiff actually litigated the causes of action asserted here.

III.  CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleading is DENIED.