1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 Case No. 19-cv-01155 DMS (AHG) KENNETH G. EDWARDS, 11 ORDER GRANTING MOTION Plaintiff, TO DISMISS 12 v. 13 ROBERT L. BLANCHARD, 14 Trustee of the Blanchard Family Trust, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 19 Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff did not 20 file an opposition. For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s motion 21 to dismiss. 22 I. 23 BACKGROUND 24 In February of 2017, Plaintiff rented a unit located at 844 Grand Avenue #4, 25 Spring Valley, California 91977 from Defendant. (Complaint at 2; D’s Mot. at 2.) 26 Plaintiff alleges that soon thereafter window blinds were falling apart and there was 27 an infestation of cockroaches and bed bugs. (Complaint at 2.) Plaintiff also alleges 1 but Defendant did not pay for the hotel cost. (Id. at 3.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges that 2 a doctor informed him that bugs were inside his body. (Id.) 3 On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendant, alleging 4 three causes of action. Plaintiff alleges (1) a denial of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 5 due to Defendant’s breach of implied warranty of habitability, (2) a violation of 12 6 U.S.C. § 1701z-11 because Defendant receives payments from the U.S. Department 7 of Housing and Urban Development, and (3) personal injury as Defendant caused 8 bugs to infect Plaintiff’s body. (Complaint at 4.) 9 II. 10 LEGAL STANDARD 11 A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests 12 the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); 13 Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir. 2001). In deciding a motion to dismiss, 14 all material factual allegations of the complaint are accepted as true, as well as all 15 reasonable inferences to be drawn from them. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 16 336, 338 (9th Cir. 1996). A court, however, need not accept all conclusory allegations 17 as true. Rather, it must “examine whether conclusory allegations follow from the 18 description of facts as alleged by the plaintiff.” Holden v. Hagopian, 978 F.3d 1115, 19 1121 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). A motion to dismiss should be granted if a 20 plaintiff’s complaint fails to contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 21 plausible.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial 22 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 23 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft 24 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 III. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Plaintiff’s 4 claims are barred by res judicata. Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, 5 precludes parties from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in a 6 prior action, and can serve as the basis for granting a motion to dismiss. See 7 Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981); see also Stewart 8 v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). “Res judicata is applicable 9 whenever there is (1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and 10 (3) privity between parties.” United States v. Liquidators of Eur. Fed. Credit Bank, 11 630 F.3d 1139, 1150 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant 12 may raise the affirmative defense of res judicata by way of a motion to dismiss under 13 Rule 12(b)(6) where, as here, there are no disputed issues of fact. See Scott v. 14 Kuhlmann, 746 F.2d 1377, 1378 (9th Cir. 1984). 15 Here, Defendant asserts that res judicata applies because Plaintiff agreed to a 16 stipulated judgment before Judge Frederick A. Mandabach in the Superior Court of 17 California, County of San Diego, on June 4, 2019.1 (D’s Mot. at 2; D’s Decl., Exh. 18 3.) Defendant contends that all three elements for res judicata are met. (D’s Mot. at 19 2-4.) The Court agrees. 20 1. Identity of Claims 21 Identity of claims exists “when two suits arise from ‘the same transactional 22 nucleus of facts.’” Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency, 23 322 F.3d 1064, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Even “[n]ewly articulated 24 claims based on the same nucleus of facts may still be subject to a res judicata finding 25
26 1 On May 7, 2019, Defendant filed a complaint against Plaintiff in Superior Court 27 based on an unlawful detainer for the same rental unit as in this case. (D’s Mot. at 1 if the claims could have been brought in the earlier action.” Id. If claims are related 2 to the same set of facts and could be conveniently tried together, then there is identity 3 of claims. See Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs-Emp’rs Const. Indus. Pension, 4 Welfare & Training Tr. Funds v. Karr, 994 F.2d 1426, 1429 (9th Cir. 1993). 5 Plaintiff’s claims in this case arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts as in 6 the earlier Superior Court action. Specifically, the Superior Court action involved 7 the same rental unit, and Plaintiff made the same allegations about Defendant 8 violating the implied warranty of habitability. (D’s Decl., Exh. 2.) Plaintiff 9 described the same infestation of cockroaches and bed bugs, and having to pay for a 10 three-day hotel stay while his rental unit was being fumigated. (Id.) Plaintiff made 11 the same allegation about how his doctor told him that there are bugs in his body. 12 (Id.) Accordingly, the Court finds an identity of claims, satisfying the first element 13 for res judicata. 14 2. Final Judgment on the Merits 15 The remaining elements of res judicata are also met. A state court judgment 16 is a final judgment for purposes of res judicata in federal court. See Migra v. Warren 17 City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984) (federal courts must give same 18 preclusive effect to state court judgments that those judgments would be given in 19 state’s own court). Plaintiff and Defendant signed a stipulated judgment before 20 Judge Mandabach in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, on June 21 4, 2019. (D’s Decl., Exh. 3.) Accordingly, there was a final judgment on the merits 22 in the first action in state court, satisfying the second element for res judicata. 23 3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 Case No. 19-cv-01155 DMS (AHG) KENNETH G. EDWARDS, 11 ORDER GRANTING MOTION Plaintiff, TO DISMISS 12 v. 13 ROBERT L. BLANCHARD, 14 Trustee of the Blanchard Family Trust, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 19 Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff did not 20 file an opposition. For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s motion 21 to dismiss. 22 I. 23 BACKGROUND 24 In February of 2017, Plaintiff rented a unit located at 844 Grand Avenue #4, 25 Spring Valley, California 91977 from Defendant. (Complaint at 2; D’s Mot. at 2.) 26 Plaintiff alleges that soon thereafter window blinds were falling apart and there was 27 an infestation of cockroaches and bed bugs. (Complaint at 2.) Plaintiff also alleges 1 but Defendant did not pay for the hotel cost. (Id. at 3.) Finally, Plaintiff alleges that 2 a doctor informed him that bugs were inside his body. (Id.) 3 On June 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendant, alleging 4 three causes of action. Plaintiff alleges (1) a denial of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 5 due to Defendant’s breach of implied warranty of habitability, (2) a violation of 12 6 U.S.C. § 1701z-11 because Defendant receives payments from the U.S. Department 7 of Housing and Urban Development, and (3) personal injury as Defendant caused 8 bugs to infect Plaintiff’s body. (Complaint at 4.) 9 II. 10 LEGAL STANDARD 11 A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests 12 the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); 13 Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 731 (9th Cir. 2001). In deciding a motion to dismiss, 14 all material factual allegations of the complaint are accepted as true, as well as all 15 reasonable inferences to be drawn from them. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 16 336, 338 (9th Cir. 1996). A court, however, need not accept all conclusory allegations 17 as true. Rather, it must “examine whether conclusory allegations follow from the 18 description of facts as alleged by the plaintiff.” Holden v. Hagopian, 978 F.3d 1115, 19 1121 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). A motion to dismiss should be granted if a 20 plaintiff’s complaint fails to contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 21 plausible.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial 22 plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 23 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft 24 v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 III. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Plaintiff’s 4 claims are barred by res judicata. Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, 5 precludes parties from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in a 6 prior action, and can serve as the basis for granting a motion to dismiss. See 7 Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981); see also Stewart 8 v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). “Res judicata is applicable 9 whenever there is (1) an identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and 10 (3) privity between parties.” United States v. Liquidators of Eur. Fed. Credit Bank, 11 630 F.3d 1139, 1150 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant 12 may raise the affirmative defense of res judicata by way of a motion to dismiss under 13 Rule 12(b)(6) where, as here, there are no disputed issues of fact. See Scott v. 14 Kuhlmann, 746 F.2d 1377, 1378 (9th Cir. 1984). 15 Here, Defendant asserts that res judicata applies because Plaintiff agreed to a 16 stipulated judgment before Judge Frederick A. Mandabach in the Superior Court of 17 California, County of San Diego, on June 4, 2019.1 (D’s Mot. at 2; D’s Decl., Exh. 18 3.) Defendant contends that all three elements for res judicata are met. (D’s Mot. at 19 2-4.) The Court agrees. 20 1. Identity of Claims 21 Identity of claims exists “when two suits arise from ‘the same transactional 22 nucleus of facts.’” Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency, 23 322 F.3d 1064, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Even “[n]ewly articulated 24 claims based on the same nucleus of facts may still be subject to a res judicata finding 25
26 1 On May 7, 2019, Defendant filed a complaint against Plaintiff in Superior Court 27 based on an unlawful detainer for the same rental unit as in this case. (D’s Mot. at 1 if the claims could have been brought in the earlier action.” Id. If claims are related 2 to the same set of facts and could be conveniently tried together, then there is identity 3 of claims. See Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs-Emp’rs Const. Indus. Pension, 4 Welfare & Training Tr. Funds v. Karr, 994 F.2d 1426, 1429 (9th Cir. 1993). 5 Plaintiff’s claims in this case arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts as in 6 the earlier Superior Court action. Specifically, the Superior Court action involved 7 the same rental unit, and Plaintiff made the same allegations about Defendant 8 violating the implied warranty of habitability. (D’s Decl., Exh. 2.) Plaintiff 9 described the same infestation of cockroaches and bed bugs, and having to pay for a 10 three-day hotel stay while his rental unit was being fumigated. (Id.) Plaintiff made 11 the same allegation about how his doctor told him that there are bugs in his body. 12 (Id.) Accordingly, the Court finds an identity of claims, satisfying the first element 13 for res judicata. 14 2. Final Judgment on the Merits 15 The remaining elements of res judicata are also met. A state court judgment 16 is a final judgment for purposes of res judicata in federal court. See Migra v. Warren 17 City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984) (federal courts must give same 18 preclusive effect to state court judgments that those judgments would be given in 19 state’s own court). Plaintiff and Defendant signed a stipulated judgment before 20 Judge Mandabach in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, on June 21 4, 2019. (D’s Decl., Exh. 3.) Accordingly, there was a final judgment on the merits 22 in the first action in state court, satisfying the second element for res judicata. 23 3. Privity between Parties 24 Finally, the parties involved in the earlier Superior Court action and in the 25 present case are identical. The third element of res judicata is clearly met. Because 26 all the elements for res judicata are met, the Court finds Plaintiff’s claims against the 27 Defendant are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Thus, Defendant’s motion to 1 IV. 2 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 3 For the reasons set out above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED 4 || WITH PREJUDICE. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 ||Dated: November 5, 2020 ins ym. 44) 8 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28