Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00687, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00687    Hearing Date: August 9, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On September 15, 2022, plaintiff Brendan Schultz (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Myralene Navarro and Jesus Navarro (collectively, “Defendants”).  On May 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting claims for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, willful misconduct, reckless misconduct, and violations of Civil Code section 1940.2 

Plaintiff alleges that from September 4, 2020, to December 5, 2020, he was a renter at Defendants’ property offered on AirBNB for short-term rental.  (FAC, ¶¶ 7-8.)  Plaintiff alleges that on November 25, 2020, Defendants hosted an indoor gathering and on December 1, 2020, he developed symptoms of illness.  (FAC, ¶¶ 9-10.)  Defendants then allegedly attempted to illegally evict him and harassed him from December 1, 2020, to December 4, 2020, by asking Plaintiff to leave and threatening harm to Plaintiff if one of them became ill.  (FAC, ¶¶ 11-13.)  On December 4, 2020, Plaintiff left the residence and found alternative accommodation at a nearby hotel. 

On June 26, 2023, Defendants filed this motion to dismiss the action with prejudice.  Defendants attach copies of minute orders from small claims court.  One claim, Case No. 21PDSC00274, was filed on November 29, 2021, and a minute order dated February 4, 2022, shows that the court dismissed Plaintiff’s action without prejudice pursuant to Plaintiff’s oral request after the court advised him that his claims would be limited to $2,500 because it was his third claim filed in 2021.  (Def.’s Motion, Ex. 1.)  On March 22, 2022, Plaintiff re-filed his claim against Defendants and his claim was assigned Case No. 22PDSC00656.  On August 16, 2022, the court dismissed this second case without prejudice after Plaintiff failed to appear at the trial.  (Def.’s Motion, Ex. 2.)  Both small claims cases involved the same allegations against Defendant as those in this action. 

Whether a small claims judgment can be afforded collateral estoppel effect to bar Plaintiff’s claims asserted here depends on whether the former proceeding “adequately reflects the issues actually litigated and decided in that proceeding.”  (Pitzen v. Superior Court (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1374, 1384-1385.)  The minute orders attached to Defendants’ motion only show that the matter was dismissed with prejudice after Plaintiff failed to appear.  Therefore, no issues were actually litigated or decided. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. 

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 9th day of August, 2023

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.