Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV12626, Date: 2025-04-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV12626 Hearing Date: April 4, 2025 Dept: 45
pedro mendoza sosa et al. v. 701-711
east 9th street llc et al.
Demurrer without motion to strike
Date of Hearing: April 4, 2025 Trial
Date: None Set.
Department: 45 Case
No.: 24STCV12626
Moving Party: Defendant
701-711 East 9th Street, LLC
Responding Party: None as of April 1, 2025
BACKGROUND
On June 8, 2023, Defendant 701-711 East
9th Street, LLC (“Defendant”) filed an unlawful detainer case against Adriana
Gonzalez Ceron and Pedro Mendoza Sosa (“Plaintiffs”), two of the three
Plaintiffs in the instant action.
On May 20, 2024, Plaintiffs Pedro
Mendoza Sosa, Adriana Gonzalez Ceron, and Antonio Lopez Chavez filed the
Complaint against Defendants 701-711 East 9th Street LLC and Does 1
through 50. The Complaint alleges four causes of action for (1) breach of
warranty of habitability; (2) breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment; (3)
negligence; and (4) breach of contract.
On October 23, 2024, the Court granted
Plaintiffs’ counsel Motion to be Relieved as Counsel.
On October 31, 2024, Defendant 701-711
East 9th Street LLC filed the Demurrer without Motion to Strike. On
March 28, 2025, Defendant filed a reply regarding the lack of opposition. As of April 1, 2025, no opposition has been
filed.
[Tentative] Ruling
The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer without leave to amend.
Moving Party to give notice.
LEGAL
STANDARD
A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear
on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading
that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 311,
318.) No other extrinsic evidence can be considered (i.e., no “speaking
demurrers”).
A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint
states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740,
747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in
context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power
(2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.) 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. [Citations]” (SKF
Farms v. Superior Ct. (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.’
[Citation]” (Hahn at 747.)
ANALYSIS
Meet and Confer
“Before filing a demurrer...the demurring party shall meet
and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that
is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can
be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.”
(CCP § 430.41(a).)
On September 13, 2024, Defendant’s counsel states that he
sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the Complaint’s
deficiency. (Dem. at p.3; Ex. A.) However, the parties were unable to reach an
agreement. (Id.) On October 23, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiffs’
counsel Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. On October 31, 2024, Defendant filed
the instant motion. Therefore, it is unclear if Defendant met and conferred
with Plaintiffs Pedro Mendoza Sosa and Adriana Gonzalez Ceron who are self-represented
litigants. Therefore, the meet and confer requirements were not satisfied. However,
insufficient meet and confer efforts are not grounds to overrule or sustain a
demurrer, or grant or deny a motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41,
subd. (a)(4); 435.5 subd. (a)(4).) Accordingly, the Court will analyze the
motion on its merits.
Request
for Judicial Notice
Defendant seeks judicial notice
for the following documents pursuant to Evidence Code Section 452(d):
Exhibit “A”:
Unlawful Detainer Complaint filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in
the case of 701-711 East 9th Street, LLC v. Adriana Gonzalez and Pedro
Mendoza, L.A.S.C. Case No. 23STUD06824;
Exhibit “B”:
Stipulation and Judgment filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in the
case of 701-711 East 9th Street, LLC v. Adriana Gonzalez and Pedro Mendoza,
L.A.S.C. Case No. 23STUD06824;
Exhibit “C”:
Writ of Possession filed the case of 701-711 East 9th Street, LLC v. Adriana
Gonzalez and Pedro Mendoza, L.A.S.C. Case No. 23STUD06824; Exhibit “D”:
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel and Declarations in Support filed in the
instant case.
Pursuant to
California Evidence Code §§ 452(d)(1) and 452(d)(2) judicial notice is granted.
The court takes judicial notice of the claims, but not the truth of any matters
asserted therein. (Gong v. City of Rosemead (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 363,
369-70 n. 1; see also Fowler v. Howell (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1746,
1752-53.
Merits
Defendant 701-711 East 9th Street, LLC demurs to the First,
Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action of Plaintiffs Pedro Mendoza Sosa and
Adriana Gonzalez Ceron’s Complaint for Breach of the Warranty of Habitability,
Breach of the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, Negligence and Breach of Contract
based on collateral estoppel and/or res judicata.
Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs claims are
barred by their stipulated waiver signed in the prior unlawful detainer case,
which was entered as a judgment on December 14, 2023. (Dem. at p. 5.) As of
April 1, 2025, no opposition has been filed.
Res Judicata/ Collateral Estoppel
“‘Res judicata’ describes the preclusive effect of a final
judgment on the merits. Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents
relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same
parties or parties in privity with them. Collateral estoppel, or issue
preclusion, ‘precludes litigation of issues argued and decided in prior
proceedings.’ [Citation.]” (Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co.
(2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 897.) The elements of claim preclusion are: (1)
the claim in the present action must be identical to a claim litigated or that
could have been litigated in a prior proceeding; (2) the prior proceeding
resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom the
doctrine is being asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior
proceeding. (Bucur v. Ahmad (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 175,
185.)
Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by res judicata and collateral
estoppel. Here, Defendant filed an unlawful detainer case against Adriana
Gonzalez Ceron and Pedro Mendoza Sosa, two of the three Plaintiffs in the
instant action. (RJN 1; Ex. A.) On December 14, 2023, the parties signed a
Stipulation which was entered as a judgment, whereby Adriana Gonzalez Ceron and
Pedro Mendoza Sosa agreed to vacate the premises. In return for being able to
stay in the premises for an additional three and a half months and the
landlord’s waiver of one year’s worth of unpaid rent, Pedro Mendoza Sosa and
Adriana Gonzalez Ceron agreed to waive all claims “arising out of or related to
their occupancy of the premises.” (RJN 2; Ex. B. at ¶ 6.) This Stipulation was
signed by the Court and entered as Judgment on December 14, 2023. (Id.)
Thereafter, Adriana Gonzalez Ceron and Pedro Mendoza Sosa vacated the premises
as per the Stipulation and Judgment. (RJN 3; Ex. C.) Plaintiffs’ former counsel
also confirmed that Plaintiffs Adriana Gonzalez Ceron and Pedro Mendoza Sosa
are the same tenants from the unlawful detainer case filed on June 8, 2023, and
disposed of on December 14, 2023, even though there are minor discrepancies in
their names. (Kerekes Decl. ¶ 3.) For instance, in the 2023 case, Adriana
Gonzalez Ceron’s name is spelled as Adreana Gonzalez and Pedro Mendoza Sosa’s
name omits “Sosa” and only lists him as Pedro Mendoza. (RJN 1 & 2; Ex. A
& B.) Both cases arose from Plaintiffs’ occupancy at 705 E. 9th Street, Los
Angeles, CA 90021, CA 90021-1816.
Based on the foregoing, the Court SUSTAINS the unopposed
demurrer without leave to amend.
CONCLUSION
The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer without leave to amend.