Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV31807, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31807    Hearing Date: May 23, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Defendant Mayra Alejandra Alatorre, as administrator for the Estate of Oscar Alatorre, erroneously sued as trustee to the Oscar Alatorre Estate, joined by defendant Maria Del Carmen Cervantes on October 27, 2022

RESPONDING PARTIES:     Plaintiffs Elizabeth Lopez Fabian and Juan Carlos Roman

Demurrer to Complaint

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this demurrer.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Elizabeth Lopez Fabian (“Fabian”) and Juan Carlos Roman (“Roman”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on September 29, 2022, against defendants Maria Del Carmen Cervantes and Mayra Alejandra Alatorre, as trustee to the Oscar Alatorre Estate. 

Plaintiffs allege 11 causes of action for (1) violation of Civil Code section 1942.4;        (2) tortious breach of the warranty of habitability; (3) private nuisance; (4) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (5) negligence; (6) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) negligence per se; (9) intentional influence to vacate; (10) retaliatory eviction; and (11) violation of Pomona Housing Stabilization, Fair Rent, and Homeowner Protection Act.

Defendant Mayra Alejandra Alatorre, as administrator for the Estate of Oscar Alatorre, erroneously sued as trustee to the Oscar Alatorre Estate, joined by defendant Maria Del Carmen Cervantes (“Defendants”) move the court for an order sustaining their demurrer to each cause of action alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court grants defendant Mayra Alejandra Alatorre, as administrator for the Estate of Oscar Alatorre, erroneously sued as trustee to the Oscar Alatorre Estate’s request for judicial notice.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

The court grants plaintiffs Elizabeth Lopez Fabian and Juan Carlos Roman’s request for judicial notice.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

DISCUSSION

The court overrules Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint on the ground that Plaintiffs have not alleged that the parties’ lease is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct because Defendants have not explained how each cause of action alleged in the Complaint, which include various tort claims (e.g., Plaintiffs’ causes of action for tortious breach of the warranty of habitability, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress) constitute causes of action “founded upon a contract . . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (g).)

The court overrules Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because the Complaint is barred by res judicata.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)  Defendants contend that this action is similar to Needelman v. DeWolf Realty Co., Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 750, since plaintiff Fabian entered into an “Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment” in a previous unlawful detainer action (Case No. 22WCUD00118).  (RJN pp. 31-32.)  However, Defendants have not (1) addressed each element of claim preclusion in their supporting papers, (2) explained how the stipulation and judgment in the previous unlawful detainer action bars each of Plaintiffs’ 11 causes of action, or (3) explained how the stipulation and judgment executed by plaintiff Fabian would bar or preclude claims brought by plaintiff Roman.  “A party who asserts claim or issue preclusion as a bar to further litigation bears the burden of proving that the requirements of the doctrine are satisfied.”  (Hong Sang Market, Inc. v. Peng (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 474, 489.)  The court finds that Defendants have not met this burden by failing to provide sufficient argument and explanation regarding the application of claim preclusion to Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

The court overrules Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because it is barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)  Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ Complaint is barred by judicial estoppel because (1) plaintiff Fabian asserted in the unlawful detainer action that there were no other adults with any possessory interest in the property, and (2) Plaintiffs now allege that plaintiff Roman was a tenant.  (RJN p. 32 [Defendant Fabian “affirms & confirms that there are no other adults in the premises with a right to possession of the Property”]; Compl., ¶ 1 [alleging that both Plaintiffs are tenants of the property].)  There are five requirements for the application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel: “‘(1) the same party has taken two positions; (2) the positions were taken in judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceedings; (3) the party was successful in asserting the first position (i.e., the tribunal adopted the position or accepted it as true); (4) the two positions are totally inconsistent; and (5) the first position was not taken as a result of ignorance, fraud, or mistake.’”  (The Swahn Group, Inc. v. Segal (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 831, 842.)

The court finds that Defendants have not shown that plaintiff Fabian’s statement in the stipulation constitutes a position that is contrary to the claims alleged by Fabian against Defendants in this action such that plaintiff Fabian is barred from alleging each cause of action in the Complaint.  For example, although plaintiff Fabian made this representation, Defendants have not shown that this representation bars her from bringing her claims against Defendants.  Further, for judicial estoppel to apply, “‘the same party has [to have] taken the two positions[.]’”  (The Swahn Group, Inc., supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 842.)  Here, plaintiff Roman did not make the quoted assertion; instead, plaintiff Fabian made the statement.  Thus, Defendants have not shown that plaintiff Roman is barred from bringing this action pursuant to the doctrine of judicial estoppel.  (Ibid.)

The court overrules Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because plaintiff Fabian did not file a claim with the probate court.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).  The court acknowledges that Defendants have judicially noticed a court filing entitled “Notice of Petition to Administer Estate of Oscar Morales Alatorre,” which was filed on September 23, 2021 in case number 21STPB03628.  (RJN Ex. F.)  However, Defendants have not (1) pointed to any allegation or judicially noticed document establishing that plaintiff Fabian did not file a claim with the probate court, or (2) sufficiently explained, and cited authority establishing, that Fabian’s failure to file a claim in the probate proceeding now bars her from bringing this action. 

ORDER

The court overrules (1) defendant Mayra Alejandra Alatorre, as administrator for the Estate of Oscar Alatorre, erroneously sued as trustee to the Oscar Alatorre Estate’s demurrer, and (2) defendant Maria Del Carmen Cervantes’s joinder to the demurrer, directed to plaintiffs Elizabeth Lopez Fabian and Juan Carlos Roman’s Complaint.

The court orders defendants Mayra Alejandra Alatorre, as administrator for the Estate of Oscar Alatorre, erroneously sued as trustee to the Oscar Alatorre Estate, and defendant Maria Del Carmen Cervantes each to file an answer to plaintiffs Elizabeth Lopez Fabian and Juan Carlos Roman’s Complaint within 10 days of the date of this order.

The court orders plaintiffs Elizabeth Lopez Fabian and Juan Carlos Roman  to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  May 23, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court