California
Appeals
Res Judicata
General Principles

Res Judicata-General Principles-Baychester Shop. Center v. SF Res. Rent Stab.and Arb. Bd.
 

D.        Res Judicata Does Not Bar Litigation of the Issues Here

            Finally, Baychester argues that res judicata precludes the Board’s decision because the court previously held that the Board abused its discretion in holding a successor landlord liable for a former landlord’s wrongful conduct against a tenant.  Baychester relies on the court’s order granting a petition for writ of mandate in Larsen, et al. v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board, Case No. 979777 (June 18, 1997), finding that the Board abused its discretion in finding a successor landlord liable for a rent reduction of $50 per month for 12.625 years based on the former landlord’s failure to provide heat.  While the landlord there urged that section 1466 applied, foreclosing his liability, the court cited sections 37.2(h) defining the term, landlord, and section 10.10(c) of the San Francisco Rent Board Rules and Regulations as applicable.  The latter regulatory section provides that a landlord can only be held liable for “decreased services” for a period of one year prior to the filing of the petition,[6] thus, the court found that the successor landlord was liable for only $350, representing “rent reductions corresponding to decreased housing services for the period of time that Landlords have owned the premises.”

            “The doctrine of [res judicata] applies when 1) the issues decided in the prior adjudication are identical with those presented in the later action; 2) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior action; and 3) the party against whom the plea is raised was a party or was in privity with a party to the prior adjudication.”  (Citizens for Open Access etc. Tide, Inc. v. Seadrift Assn. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1053, 1065.)  Contrary to Baychester’s characterization of Larsen, our review of the case demonstrates that the issue there was not identical to the issue presented in this case.  The principles of res judicata therefore did not bar the litigation of the issues raised here.

Baychester Shop. Center v. SF Res. Rent Stab.and Arb. Bd. 6/3/08 CA14 -A118684

Notice of Appeal Timeliness Table of Contents
California Appellate Forms Table of Contents
 

Previous Page