Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV02782, Date: 2024-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02782    Hearing Date: April 11, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

ARTHUR CARLISLE, et al.,

                    Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

DAVID VENTIMIGLIA, et al.,

 

                    Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

     CASE NO.:  23AHCV02782

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS DAVID ANTHONY VENTIMIGIA AND ANITA RUBY VENTIMIGIA’S DEMURRER

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

April 11, 2024

 

 

 

 

I.            INTRODUCTION

On November 30, 2023, plaintiffs Arthur Carlisle and Harriet Carlisle (collectively, “the Carlisles”) filed this unlawful detainer action against defendants David Ventimiglia and Anita Ventimiglia (collectively, “the Ventimiglias”) relating to the property located at 2320 South Garfield Avenue in Monterey Park, California (the “Property”).

On December 8, 2023, the Ventimiglias filed this demurrer on the grounds that there is another action pending between the same parties regarding the rights to the Property, captioned Anita Ruby Ventimiglia, et al. v. Arthur Carlisle, et al., Case No. 23AHCV02147 (the “Ventimiglia Action”), pending in Department X of the Alhambra Courthouse.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(c) provides that a party against whom a complaint is filed may object by demurrer to the pleading on the ground that “[t]here is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.” This plea in abatement may be made by demurrer or answer when there is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action. (Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 789.) The later-filed suit is “abated” (stayed) pending resolution of the earlier action which, if concluded on the merits will be res judicata; if not, the later action can proceed. (Id. at 788-89.)  The court can take judicial notice of the court files in determining the basis for this ground. (See Bistawros v. Greenberg (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 189, 191-192.)

III.        REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The Court takes judicial notice of the complaint filed in the Ventimiglia Action.

IV.        DISCUSSION

First, the Ventimiglias argue that the Carlisles lack standing to sue because they are not landlords and there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Instead, the Ventimiglias claim, the Carlisles are sellers with a sellers’ carry-back loan and the Ventimiglias are buyers. This assertion is contradicted by the rental agreement attached to the complaint which begins, “We [sic] Anita and David Ventimiglia, agree to rent to own the property at 2320 South Garfield Avenue, Monterey Park, California, 91754.”

Second, the Ventimiglias argue that this unlawful detainer action should not proceed because of their earlier-filed complaint, which asserts ten causes of action surrounding the Subject Property including breach of purchase agreement, breach of express oral trust, promissory estoppel, quiet title, promissory fraud, equitable estoppel, quantum meruit, declaratory relief, negligence, and preliminary and permanent injunction. “In order to sustain the plea of another action pending it is essential that it shall appear: (1) That both suits are predicated upon the same cause of action; (2) that both suits are pending in the same jurisdiction; and (3) that both suits are contested by the same parties. [Citation.] . . . The only relief to which a litigant is entitled upon the plea, whether by demurrer or answer, is that the second action abate.” (Colvig v. RKO General, Inc. (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 56, 70-71.) It is a “universal rule that a plea in abatement may be maintained only where the claim sued upon the second action is such that a final judgment in the first one could be pleaded in bar as a former adjudication.  (Lord v. Garland (1946) 27 Cal.2d 840, 848.)

The instant action is an unlawful detainer and involves questions of possession, whereas the Ventimiglia Action is not an unlawful detainer and involves questions of title. Therefore, both suits are not predicated on the same cause of action and in fact, are inherently based on separate causes of action because questions of title cannot be litigated in unlawful detainer, which is a summary proceeding. (Evans v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 162, 171 [unlawful detainer action is not “a bar to the simultaneous maintenance of quiet title actions”].)

V.          CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the demurrer is OVERRULED.

Dated this 11th day of April, 2024

 

 

 

 

       William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

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.