Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case Number: 23STCV27912, Date: 2024-06-21 Tentative Ruling

805 WOOSTER, LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BRETT HYMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:

23STCV27912

Hearing Date:

June 21, 2024

Hearing Time: 2:00 p.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

On November 14, 2023, Plaintiff 805 Wooster, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Brett Hyman (“Defendant”). The Complaint alleges one cause of action for breach of contract.

In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that it is the owner of real property located at 805 S. Wooster St. Unit 208, Los Angeles, California 90035, County of Los Angeles (the “Premises”). (Compl., ¶ 6.) “On or about February 03, 2020, Plaintiff and Defendant executed a Rental Agreement and/or Lease (hereinafter, ‘Lease Agreement’), pursuant to which Plaintiff agreed to lease to Defendant the Premises for a term of twelve (12) calendar months commencing February 01, 202 [sic], and ending January 31, 2021.” (Compl., ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff alleges that “[u]nder the Lease Agreement, Defendant agreed to pay rent, subject to increases and adjustments, starting at a monthly base rate of $3,495.00, which would become due and owing on the first day of each month.” (Compl., ¶ 8.) “On April 25, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant a 30-Day Notice to Change the Terms of Your Rental Agreement (hereinafter, ‘30-Day Notice’), pursuant to which the monthly base rent would increase to $3,795.00 beginning June 01, 2022. The 30-Day Notice also provided for a $600.00 increase in Defendant’s security deposit.” (Compl., ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff alleges that “[i]n August 2022, Defendant breached the terms of the lease agreement when she failed to tender the full monthly rent and a balance began to accrue.” (Compl., ¶ 11.) Plaintiff alleges that “[t]o date…Defendant has accrued and owes Plaintiff a total of $43,278.50, or an amount to be determined upon proof at the time of judgment, in unpaid rental obligations.” (Compl., ¶ 12.)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (a), “[t]he party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading.” Defendant asserts that here, “[t]his Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the instant matter.” (Demurrer at p. 7:22.)

Defendant notes that on May 19, 2023, the unlawful detainer action 805 Wooster, LLC v. Brett Hyman, et al., Case No. 23SMUD01151 (herein, the “UD Action”), was filed. (Defendant’s RJN, Ex. 1.) Defendant asserts that the instant action and the UD Action were “filed by the same plaintiff against the same defendant for the same back rent owing on the same subject property.” (Demurrer at p. 7:13-14.) The Complaint in the UD Action alleges, inter alia, that 805 Wooster, LLC is the “Landlord” of the premises located at “805 S. Wooster St. Unit 208, Los Angeles, CA 90035, County of Los Angeles.” (Defendant’s RJN, Ex. 1, ¶¶ 3-4.) The UD Action also alleges that defendant Brett Hyman agreed to pay rent of $3,795.00 monthly; and that Plaintiff requests, inter alia, possession of the premises, past-due rent of $3,795.00, and “damages at the rate stated in item 13 from…June 01, 2023.” (Defendant’s RJN, Ex. 1, ¶¶ 6, 19.)

Defendant also notes that on September 5, 2023, an “Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment” was entered in the UD Action. (Defendant’s RJN, Ex. 2.) The Stipulation and Judgment provides, inter alia, that “[j]udgment shall be entered in favor of plaintiff as named in the complaint and against the following defendants:…Brett Hyman.” (Defendant’s RJN, Ex. 2, p. 1.) Defendant notes that the Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment provides that “[t]his Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this stipulation per CCP 664.6.” (Defendant’s RJN, Ex. 2, p. 2.) In the instant demurrer, Defendant contends that “[b]ecause the full performance of the terms of the settlement has not taken place - the outstanding rent is still unpaid - the Santa Monica court retains ‘jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement.’…Both courts cannot have jurisdiction over the same issue. Since the Santa Monica court already has jurisdiction, this Court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to hear the instant matter.” (Demurrer at p. 8:6-11.)

But Defendant does not appear to provide any legal authority to support the proposition that the Court here has no jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s breach of contract action because the Court in the UD Action retains jurisdiction to enforce the Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment. Moreover, as noted by Plaintiff, the Unlawful Detainer Stipulation and Judgment entered in the UD Action also provides that “[e]ach party reserves the right to bring any action again against the other related to the this [sic] tenancy.” (Defendant’s RJN, Ex. 2, p. 2.) Defendant does not appear to address this provision in the instant demurrer.

Defendant also cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 99, which provides that “[a] judgment or final order, in respect to the matter directly adjudged, is conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest but does not operate as collateral estoppel of a party or a successor in interest to a party in other litigation with a person who was not a party or a successor in interest to a party to the action in which the judgment or order is rendered.”

However, the Court does not see how Code of Civil Procedure section 99 demonstrates that the Court in this action “has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading” to the extent that is what Defendant is arguing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (a).)

Defendant also asserts that “principles of res judicata prevent the instant action.” (Demurrer at p. 8:21.) However, Defendant does not cite any legal authority to support this assertion. In addition, Plaintiff cites to Hong Sang Market, Inc. v. Peng (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 474, 492, where the Court of Appeal noted that “[b]ecause a court has no jurisdiction to award more than one year’s back-due rent in an unlawful detainer action, res judicata principles suggest that an unlawful detainer judgment should not preclude a separate, civil action for back-due rent that is not recoverable in an unlawful detainer proceeding.” (Hong Sang Market, Inc. v. Peng, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 492.) The Court of Appeal in Hong Sang held that “an unlawful detainer judgment awarding back-due rent does not preclude a lessor from seeking additional back-due rent in an ordinary civil action. However, the lessor is precluded from recovering back-due rent associated with a particular time period in the subsequent civil action if such a claim was actually determined on the merits in the unlawful detainer action. Thus, the lessor is not only precluded from recovering twice for the same items of damages but also may not renew a claim for back-due rent associated with a particular time period if that periodic claim was denied on the merits in the unlawful detainer action. Because the damages for back-due rent in the unlawful detainer judgment here were limited to the month of May 2011, Hong Sang was not precluded from seeking additional back-due rent covering the period from September 2009 through February 2011 in its breach of contract action. Therefore, the trial court did not err in rejecting Peng’s claim that Hong Sang was precluded from seeking additional back-due rent in its civil action after recovering one month’s back-due rent in the unlawful detainer action.” (Id. at p. 497.)

Here, the Complaint in this action alleges that “Defendant has accrued and owes Plaintiff a total of $43,278.50, or an amount to be determined upon proof at the time of judgment, in unpaid rental obligations.” (Compl., ¶ 12.) In the demurrer, Defendant does not appear to show that damages in this amount were awarded to Plaintiff in the UD Action. As discussed above, the Hong Sang Court “conclude[d] the unlawful detainer judgment did not preclude Hong Sang from pursuing a separate civil action for back-due rent that accrued in months other than the one month for which damages were awarded in the unlawful detainer action.” (Hong Sang Market, Inc. v. Peng, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at p. 481.) In addition, Defendant does not address the Hong Sang case in the reply.

Defendant also asserts that “CCP § 430.10(c) prohibits the instant lawsuit.” (Demurrer at p. 9:1.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (c), “[t]he party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds:…(c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.” Defendant asserts that the UD Action “involves the same Plaintiff seeking the same back rent from the same Defendant involving the same subject property as in the instant one-cause Complaint.” (Demurrer at p. 9:6-7.) But as discussed, the Complaint in the instant action alleges one cause of action for breach of contract. The “Complaint - Unlawful Detainer” filed in the UD Action does not allege a cause of action for breach of contract. (Defendant’s RJN, Ex. 1.)

In light of the foregoing, the Court overrules Defendant’s demurrer to the Complaint.

Based on the foregoing, the Court overrules Defendant’s demurrer to the Complaint.

The Court orders Defendant to file and serve an answer to the Complaint within 10 days of the date of this Order.¿¿

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50