12
Summary judgment — as opposed to summary adjudication — was proper here. This is
because “California has consistently applied the ‘primary rights’ theory, under which the invasion of one
primary right gives rise to a single cause of action. [Citations.]” (Slater v. Blackwood (1975) 15 Cal.3d
791, 795.) Here, plaintiff asserted her right to restitution and possession of the premises based on
different legal theories, as set forth in the three separate 10-day notices. The “cause of action,” however,
is based on the harm plaintiff suffered, rather than on the particular theory she asserted. (Ibid., citing
Peiser v. Mettler (1958) 50 Cal.2d 594, 605.) “Even where there are multiple legal theories upon which
recovery might be predicated, one injury gives rise to only one claim for relief. (Ibid.) The propriety of
the entry of summary judgment is further supported by the fact that plaintiff waived her right to back
rent and damages to enable the judgment for possession to “issue forthwith.” 11