Summary judgmt ruling: Plaintiff lacked standing in UD action. Can Plaintiff re-file?

[McRonalds]

Hi,

This concerns res judicata and issue/claim preclusion.

On April 10, 2012, roommate served me with 2 Notices:

1. 3-Day Notice to Pay or Quit [alleging rent due for March and April of 2012]
2. 30-Day Notice to Terminate Tenancy

On April 18, Plaintiff initiated an unlawful detainer suit, based upon both notices. The 30-day Notice's period had not yet expired at the time of such filing and service of the UD Complaint.

Plaintiff failed to comply with my Request for Admissions, in any respect. Therefore, I filed a motion to deem request for admissions admitted, which the judge granted. (In the below reply, I listed several of those admissions.)

Subsequently, I filed a motion for summary judgment, which the judge also granted. The judge ruled, "No triable issues of material facts as to defendant. [¶] ... [¶]. Plaintiff admitted no standing and no rent owed to him per 3-day notice and no landlord-tenant relationship. Trial date of June xx, 2012 is ordered advanced to this date and vacated."

On June 21, 2012, Plaintiff served me with new summons and complaint for unlawful detainer. It is based upon that same 30-day notice with which I was served on April 10. In the complaint, there is a section which reads, "Plaintiff's interest in the premises is: 'as owner' or 'other (specify)'" Plaintiff stated that his interest in the premises is "as owner."

---

Questions:

1. What is the res judicata effect of a summary judgment ruling which was based upon Plaintiff's admissions, if any?

2. Is there claim preclusion or issue preclusion as to Plaintiff's standing to bring a subsequent UD action against me?

3. For the purposes of this re-filed suit, is that 30-day notice still valid?

4. Can Plaintiff properly claim that his interest in the premises is "as owner"? (Plaintiff merely rent one of building's units.)

---

---

C.C.P. 2033. 410. (a) Any matter admitted in response to a request for admission is conclusively established against the party making the admission in the pending action, unless the court has permitted withdrawal or amendment of that admission under Section 2033 .300.

C.C.P. 2033. 410. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), any admission made by a party under this section is binding only on that party and is made for the purpose of the pending action only. It is not an admission by that party for any other purpose, and it shall not be used in any manner against that party in any other proceeding.

---

Thank you,

McRonalds

 

[McRonalds]

Here are the relevant admissions deemed admitted:


That YOU lack any legal standing whatsoever to bring the above entitled action.

That YOU and DEFENDANT live as co-tenants in the RENTAL UNIT.

That, as a matter of law, YOU do not regard YOURSELF as a master lessee.

That, as a matter of law, YOU do not regard YOURSELF as a sublessor.

That, as a matter of law, YOU characterize the status of DEFENDANT's tenancy of the RENTAL UNIT as a common law tenant.

That YOUR rental contract with MANAGEMENT expressly prohibits the occupancy of the RENTAL UNIT by any person whose occupancy has not been approved by MANAGEMENT.

That MANAGEMENT did notify DEFENDANT that it had formally approved HIM as a tenant.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

Here are the relevant admissions deemed admitted:

That YOU lack any legal standing whatsoever to bring the above entitled action.

If the party lacked legal standing to bring an action, that party's case/claim is over. With regard to any subsequent suit, they have two problems. First there is res judicata in relitigating what is essentially the same issue from what I see. But even if it's related, if the plaintiff must establish a landlord tenant relationship in this second action they fail yet again because plaintiff cannot claim they are a landlord and that is a required element of the claim.

 

[mightymoose]

Also, the 30 day notice has no meaning whatsoever since it was not issued by the landlord.

 

[army judge]

Simply put, your roommate has no standing to evict you.
Only the landlord/owner of the property can evict you.
In California, a three day notice to quite can only be issued if rent is unpaid.
A plaintiff can request a remedy for conduct that has not been breached.
However, that is a useless request, and the captioned lawsuit illustrates why!