4425 MAPLEWOOD LLC, VS JESSE PIMENTEL, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STLC01995    Hearing Date: April 9, 2021    Dept: 48

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

On February 28, 2020, Plaintiff 4425 Maplewood LLC filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Jesse Pimentel, Manuela Osmont, and Jason Goodlett for breach of rental agreement and holdover damages. On December 18, 2020, Osmont and Goodlett filed a demurrer, noticing a hearing on April 7, 2021. They refiled the demurrer on December 21, 2020, noticing a hearing on April 9, 2021.

On December 22, 2020, the Court denied Osmont’s request for a fee waiver. On January 6, 2021, the Court ordered Osmont stricken from the demurrer due to nonpayment of fees. The Court therefore addresses the demurrer only as to Goodlett.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Goodlett requests judicial notice of “[t]he existence of the pending appeal of the unlawful detainer matter in 4425 Maplewood, LLC v. Manuela Osmont, Jason Goodlett, Los Angeles Superior Court Appellate Division Case Number BV033328.” No records are identified or provided. The Court therefore takes judicial notice only of the existence of the appeal arising from 4425 Maplewood LLC v. Jesse Pimentel, et al., Case No. 19STUD07827, but not any records therein.

Goodlett also requests that the Court take judicial notice of the judgment, notice of appeal, and case register in 4425 Maplewood LLC v. Jesse Pimentel, et al., Case No. 19STUD07827. The request is granted.

DEMURRER

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, accepting the alleged facts as true. (Nolte v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1406.) “Because a demurrer challenges defects on the face of the complaint, it can only refer to matters outside the pleading that are subject to judicial notice.” (Arce ex rel. Arce v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 556.) “When court records which the court may judicially notice provide ground for objection to a complaint, a demurrer on that ground is proper.” (Britz, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 177, 180.)

A special demurrer for uncertainty under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (f) is disfavored and will only be sustained where the pleading is so bad that defendant or plaintiff cannot reasonably respond—i.e., cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Even if the pleading is somewhat vague, “ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Ibid.)

First Cause of Action – Breach of Contract

Goodlett demurs to the first cause of action for breach of contract on the grounds that there is another action pending between the parties on the same claim. (Demurrer at p. 5.) A party may demurrer to an action on the grounds that “[t]here is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10, subd. (c).) “In determining whether the causes of action are the same for purposes of pleas in abatement, the rule is that such a plea may be maintained only where a judgment in the first action would be a complete bar to the second action. Where a demurrer is sustained on the ground of another action pending, the proper order is not a dismissal, but abatement of further proceedings pending termination of the first action.” (Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 787-788.) “Abatement of the second action is a matter of right. A trial court has no discretion to allow the second action to proceed if it finds the first involves substantially the same controversy between the same parties.” (Leadford v. Leadford (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 571, 574.)

The December 3, 2019 judgment in the unlawful detainer action awarded Plaintiff possession of the premises, forfeiture of the lease, and no past due rent. (RJN, Ex. A.) Goodlett has appealed the judgment in the unlawful detainer action, and the appeal remains pending. (RJN, Ex. B.) Here, Plaintiff seeks an award of past due rent from July 1, 2019 to December 3, 2019, which is the same relief the court denied in the unlawful detainer action.

Plaintiff argues that abatement is inappropriate because Goodlett is an appellant in the appeal but a defendant in this action. (Opposition at p. 7.) However, Goodlett was also a defendant in the unlawful detainer action, and that judgment is not yet final, pending the appeal. The parties are therefore in the same relationship in this action and the unlawful detainer action.

Plaintiff also argues that there were additional defendants in the unlawful detainer action. (Opposition at p. 7.) Plaintiff’s reliance on Karp v. Dunn (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 192, is unavailing. In that case, additional defendants in the second action were not named in the first action. (Id. at pp. 194-196.) The Court of Appeal found that the trial court improperly sustained a demurrer on the basis of another action pending as to the additional defendants. (Id. at p. 196.) Here, the same three people are defendants in both actions.

Because Plaintiff’s first cause of action for breach of contract seek back rent and damages from July 1, 2019 through December 3, 2019 (FAC ¶ 23), it involves substantially the same controversy as in the unlawful detainer action. Accordingly, the Court finds that abatement of the first cause of action is appropriate, pending the appeal in the unlawful detainer action.

Second Cause of Action – Hold Over Damages

Goodlett argues that there is no cause of action for “hold over damages,” and if this cause of action sounds in negligence, then Plaintiff did not allege a duty, breach of duty, causation, or damages. (Demurrer at pp. 9-10.)

Plaintiff alleges that on December 3, 2019, it was awarded possession of the premises in an unlawful detainer action, and “[t]his action is for damages for possession from December 3, 2019 through the date of vacancy of all occupants of the Subject Property.” (FAC ¶¶ 24-26.) Plaintiff does not identify a basis for these damages, such as in contract or in tort. If Plaintiff is alleging a tortious occupation of the property or failure to pay rent under a contract, it must say so and allege facts to support all required elements.

Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained on this ground with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION

The demurrer is SUSTAINED on the first cause of action, and the first cause of action is abated pending the appeal in the unlawful detainer case.

The demurrer is SUSTAINED with 15 days’ leave to amend on the second cause of action.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.

Case Number: 20STLC01995    Hearing Date: September 22, 2020    Dept: 26

4425 Maplewood, LLC v. Pimentel, et al.

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff 4425 Maplewood, LLC’s Motion to Reclassify Action as Unlimited is GRANTED. THIS CASE IS RECLASSIFIED AS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE AND TRANSFERRED TO THE RECLASSIFICATION/TRANSFER DESK FOR REASSIGNMENT OF THE CASE TO AN INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT AND PAYMENT OF RECLASSIFICATION FEES.

ANALYSIS:

On February 28, 2020, Plaintiff 4425 Maplewood, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Jesse Pimentel, Manuela Osmont andJason Goodlett (“Defendants”) for breach of lease agreement and holdover damages. (Compl., ¶¶14-26.) On March 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint seeking damages in excess of $25,000.00. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify Action on June 2, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 allows a plaintiff to file a motion for reclassification of an action within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. (CCP § 403.040(a).) If the motion is made after the time for the plaintiff to amend the pleading, the motion may only be granted if (1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the plaintiff shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. (CCP § 403.040(b).) In Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262, the California Supreme Court held that a matter may be reclassified from unlimited to limited only if it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff's damages will necessarily be less than $25,000. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257.) If there is a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00, the case cannot be transferred to limited. (Ibid.) This high standard is appropriate in light of “the circumscribed procedures and recovery available in the limited civil courts.” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278.)

In Ytuarte, the Court of Appeals examined the principles it set forth in Walker and held that “the court should reject the plaintiff's effort to reclassify the action as unlimited only when the lack of jurisdiction as an “unlimited” case is certain and clear.” (Id. at 279.) Nevertheless, the plaintiff must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00 and the trial court must review the record to determine “whether a judgment in excess of $25,000.00 is obtainable.” (Ibid.)

Discussion

Plaintiff having amended the Complaint once without leave of court, the Motion must demonstrate good cause for the timing of this Motion and that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdiction of this Court. Plaintiff’s managing agent declares that as of the filing of the Motion to Reclassify the holdover damages had increased from less than $25,000.00 to approximately $34,000.00. (Motion, Hoffman Decl., ¶¶1-5.) This corresponds to the $3,200.00 in unpaid rent allegedly charged each month from March to June 2020. (Ibid.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff 4425 Maplewood, LLC’s Motion to Reclassify Action is GRANTED. THIS CASE IS RECLASSIFIED AS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE AND TRANSFERRED TO THE RECLASSIFICATION/TRANSFER DESK FOR REASSIGNMENT OF THE CASE TO AN INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT AND PAYMENT OF RECLASSIFICATION FEES.

Moving party to give notice.