Moriarty v. Laramar Mgmt. Corp. (2014)

Citation: Moriarty v. Laramar Mgmt. Corp. (2014)
Parent Document: Moriarty v. Laramar Mgmt. Corp. (2014)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2014-02-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2654777/moriarty-v-laramar-mgmt-corp/ ↗

Full Text

677 chars

16
cross-complaints are permitted in U.D., so not as if he could assert any affirmative
complaints that he was going to use.”
       In any event, the argument that the judgment entered on Moriarty’s default in the
unlawful detainer action proves that his “claims are barred by the doctrines of claim and
issue preclusion” is wrong. The sole issue in an unlawful detainer action is possession of
the premises. (Cheney v. Trauzettel (1937) 9 Cal.2d 158, 159; Berry v. Society of Saint
Pius X (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 354, 363.) The range of Moriarty’s claims is, as already
shown, far wider than that.
                                     DISPOSITION
       The order is affirmed.

Other Sections in This Document (32)

Full Text