Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00516, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 620-3071 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 21PSCV00516    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: G

Defendant Longji Guan and Xiuhua Liang’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Yu Zheng Chen

Defendant Longji Guan and Xiuhua Liang’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

Respondent: Plaintiff Yu Zheng Chen

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Longji Guan and Xiuhua Liang’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Defendant Longji Guan and Xiuhua Liang’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is deemed MOOT.

BACKGROUND

This is an action arising from a landlord-tenant dispute. In July 2020, Plaintiff Yu Zheng Chen entered into a lease agreement with Defendant Longji Guan (Guan) in which Plaintiff agreed to lease a property in Rowland Heights to Guan for a one-year term in exchange for monthly rent of $2,500. Plaintiff alleges Guan and Guan’s family members did not pay rent under their agreement from May 2021 to July 2021.

On June 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Guan, Xiuhua Liang (Liang), Angeles, and Does 1-3 alleging breach of contract. On October 4, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), alleging the same cause of action against the same defendants and adding Bingwei Guan (Bingwei), Yudan Li (Li), and Does 4-5 as additional defendants.

On November 22, 2021, Guan and Liang (collectively, Defendants), as well as Bingwei and Li, filed the present demurrer and motion to strike to Plaintiff’s FAC. On January 11, 2022, the court sustained the demurrer as to Bingwei and Li. The court also took judicial notice of a small claims action between Plaintiff and Defendants that was currently being appealed (Case No. 21WCSC00555) and stayed the action pending disposition of that case.

On September 21, 2022, the court held a status conference and noted the small claims action had concluded with a judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff. Accordingly, the court set a hearing on Defendants’ demurrer for December 14.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party may demur to a complaint on the grounds that it “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) A demurrer tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 (Hahn).) When considering demurrers, courts accept all well pleaded facts as true. (Fox v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, at p. 747.) 

ANALYSIS

Defendants demur to Plaintiff’s FAC for breach of contract, arguing a judgment in Plaintiff’s small claims action would be res judicata on this action. The court agrees.

The doctrine of “res judicata” or claim preclusion “prevents re-litigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.” (Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896.) In other words, “if a plaintiff prevails in an action, the cause is merged into the judgment and may not be asserted in a subsequent lawsuit.” (Id., at p. 896-897.) Claim preclusion applies even if the judgment is a small claims judgment. (Pitzen v. Superior Court (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1374, 1381.)

On May 4, 2021, before Plaintiff filed the complaint initiating the present action, Plaintiff filed a claim in small claims court (21WCSC00555) against Defendants for three months of unpaid rent in the amount of $7,500. On November 18, that court entered a judgment in favor of Plaintiff for $7,500 plus costs. On July 8, 2022, the court vacated the previous judgement and entered a new judgment for Plaintiff in the reduced amount of $3,000 plus costs.

Thus, because Plaintiff’s action against Defendants for unpaid rent under their lease agreement was already litigated and determined on the merits in favor of Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s present action before this court is barred by claim preclusion.

Accordingly, the court SUSTAINS Defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s FAC is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.