Burks v. Caso

Filing 7

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 5/24/2017 FINDING the plaintiff's present action to be barred by collateral estoppel; DISMISSING this action in its entirety; DENYING 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction as moot; DIRECTING the plaintiff to review and comply with any orders from the Superior Court regarding her unlawful detainer. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DIOMA BURKS,

12

No. 2:17-cv-00894-MCE-DB
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

VINCE CASO,

15

ORDER

Defendant.

16
17

On April 27, 2017, Plaintiff Dioma Burks filed a Complaint in this Court alleging

18

fourteen causes of action against Defendant Vince Caso1 related to conditions of and

19

rental payments for the home Plaintiff rents and also related to the eviction of Plaintiff

20

from that same property. ECF No. 1. It appears Plaintiff’s primary allegations are that

21

Defendant increased rent and utilities without providing notice, charged extra rent,

22

accepted “side payments,” provided improper notices to pay or quit, retaliated against

23

Plaintiff, forged the rental agreement, and failed to correct what were uninhabitable living

24

conditions. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint additionally seeks a preliminary injunction

25

and/or temporary restraining order (“TRO”), presumably preventing Defendant from

26

evicting Plaintiff from the home. ECF No. 1.

27
1

28

It appears that Plaintiff may intend to assert causes of action against Access Real Estate and/or
Kelly Wyler, as well as Fedliz Caso, but only Vince Caso is presently named in the caption.

1

1

The Court denied Plaintiff’s request for TRO by Order dated May 3, 2017, ECF

2

No. 3, noting that Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of Eastern District Local

3

Rule 231, failed to establish that there was an imminent threat of harm that could be

4

cured by issuance of a TRO, and failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits

5

of her underlying claims. The Court further ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing on

6

or before May 8, 2017, as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

7

due to what appeared to be a then-pending unlawful detainer action in Sacramento

8

Superior Court. Id. Defendant was ordered to respond by May 15, 2017, and the Court

9

tentatively set a hearing on the matter for May 18, 2017. Id. Absent a response from

10

Defendant, the Court issued a Minute Order on May 16, 2017, conveying that a hearing

11

on the matter would be unnecessary, and that a formal order would issue. ECF No. 5.

12

That order follows.

13

Plaintiff’s May 8 filing helped to clarify a number of issues that were previously not

14

clear to the Court. First, Plaintiff provides that she was subjected to eviction beginning

15

May 2, 2017, and also attaches to her filing the relevant Writ of Possession issued by

16

the Sacramento Superior Court on April 6, 2017. Second, Plaintiff has attempted to

17

clarify that her claims against Defendant include wrongful eviction, improper rent

18

increase, premature “opt out” of Section 8 in violation of Defendant’s agreement with the

19

Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (“SHRA”) to provide subsidized

20

housing, inadequate notice of that opt out, and violation of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”)

21

as a result of (1) the disparate impact of Defendant’s conduct and (2) Defendant’s failure

22

to affirmatively further the goals of fair housing.

23

Despite these clarifications, however, Plaintiff has failed to address the impact of

24

the related unlawful detainer action—which has been adjudicated in Sacramento County

25

Superior Court, Case No. 17UD01426—on her present action in this Court. The Court

26

therefore raises this issue sua sponte and, for the reasons explained below, finds that

27

collateral estoppel bars relitigation of Plaintiff’s present claims. Plaintiff’s action is

28

therefore DISMISSED in its entirety.
2

1

The Full Faith and Credit Act requires federal courts to give preclusive effect to

2

judgments issued by state courts where those judgments would be given preclusive

3

effect in state proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738. The Court applies California law to

4

determine whether a previous judgment precludes Plaintiff’s present claims. Coates v.

5

Singh, Case No. 1:14-cv-1910-LJO-SKO, 2016 WL 110442, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11,

6

2016). Under California law, collateral estoppel (or issue preclusion) provides “that when

7

an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that

8

issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.”

9

People v. Santamaria, 8 Cal. 4th 903, 930 (1994). In order for collateral estoppel to

10

apply, the following factors must be met: (1) the issue sought to be precluded is identical

11

to an issue necessarily decided in a previous proceeding; (2) the decision rendered was

12

final and on the merits; and (3) the party against whom preclusion is sought was a party

13

to or is in privity with a party to the previous proceeding. Thomas v. Housing Authority of

14

the County of Los Angeles, No. CV 04-6970 MMM (RCx), 2005 WL 6136432 (C.D. Cal.

15

June 3, 2005), citing Cosia v. McKenna & Cuneo, 25 Cal. 4th 1194, 1201, n. 1 (2001);

16

Heath v. Cast, 813 F.2d 254, 258 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Lucido v. Super. Ct., 51 Cal.

17

3d 335, 341 (1990). Underlying public policy concerns—such as judicial economy, the

18

integrity of the justice system, and protection from vexatious litigants—are also

19

considered. Lucido, 51 Cal. 3d at 343. It appears from the limited filings that factors (2)

20

and (3) are satisfied; the Court discusses the first factor more fully below. 2

21

Although a judgment in unlawful detainer usually has limited preclusive effect, see

22

Coates, 2016 WL 110442, at *6, “[a] final judgment on the merits in an unlawful detainer

23

action has preclusive effect with respect to the tenant’s right to possession of the

24

premises.” Thomas, 2005 WL 6136432, at *6. “Because an unlawful detainer action

25
26
27
28

2

Because only Vince Caso—one of two plaintiffs in the underlying unlawful detainer—is named as
a defendant in this action, the Court finds this requirement is met. The possible addition of Fedliz Caso,
the other Plaintiff to the unlawful detainer, would not change this determination. Access Real Estate and
Kelly Wyler do not appear to be parties to the unlawful detainer but, because they are not named in the
present suit the Court makes no determination regarding potential privity between Vince Caso and Access
Real Estate.

3

1

determines the tenant’s right to possession of the premises, a final judgment on the

2

merits in the action precludes relitigation of any issues that are determinative of the

3

tenant’s right to possession. This includes affirmative defenses relating to

4

possession . . . ” and “[a]mong such defenses are discriminatory eviction and violation of

5

the fair housing laws.” Id. at *8.

6

In the present case, the Court is unable to identify a single cause of action that is

7

not directly determinative of Plaintiff’s right to possession, which right was finally

8

adjudicated in Defendant’s unlawful detainer against Plaintiff in Superior Court.

9

Specifically, Plaintiff’s complaint and motions for preliminary injunction, taken together,

10

allege poor conditions of her rental, increases in rent, breach of Defendant’s agreement

11

with SHRA, wrongful eviction, and violations of the FHA. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin

12

Defendant from evicting her from the property, or presumably, seeks an order reinstating

13

her right to possess the property from which she has already been evicted. Because

14

each of these claims and the requested relief address issues that are determinative of

15

Plaintiff’s right to possess the property, the Court finds these issues to be identical to

16

those issues necessarily decided in Defendant’s previous unlawful detainer.

17

Because all three factors have thus been satisfied, the Court finds Plaintiff’s

18

present action to be barred by collateral estoppel. See id. Consequently, Plaintiff’s

19

action is DISMISSED in its entirety, and any related motion for preliminary injunction is

20

hereby DENIED as moot.3 Plaintiff is directed to review and comply with any orders from

21

the Superior Court regarding her unlawful detainer.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 24, 2017

24
25
26
27
3

28

The Court further notes that Plaintiff has another case currently pending in Sacramento Superior
Court, Case No. 34-2016-00201468 against Access Real Estate.

4