Davidyan v. Moayery CA2/2

Filed 10/31/23 Davidyan v. Moayery CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

MIKE DAVIDYAN, B315222

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. v. No. 21VECV00054)

MOHAMMAD MOAYERY et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Virginia Keeny, Judge. Affirmed.

Mike Davidyan, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Dennis P. Block & Associates, Dennis P. Block and Vicken Hagop Karagueuzian for Defendants and Respondents. _________________________

Appellant Mike Davidyan (Davidyan) was evicted from a property owned by respondents Mohammad Moayery (Moayery) and Parvaneh Moshir Afshar (Afshar) (collectively respondents). Two years later, Davidyan sued respondents for damages caused by mold exposure during his tenancy. The trial court sustained respondents’ demurrer, finding that because Davidyan had raised the mold issue as a habitability defense in the unlawful detainer case, his claims were barred by collateral estoppel. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 I. The Unlawful Detainer Action In February 2017, Davidyan entered into a lease for a residential property owned by respondents (the property). In October 2018, Moayery sued Davidyan for unlawful detainer. Davidyan’s answer alleged that the property was not habitable due to, among other things, “fungus” in the home. Two months later, the trial court entered a judgment of possession for Moayery and awarded him nearly $20,000 in holdover damages. Davidyan appealed from the unlawful detainer judgment, arguing that the trial court ignored his testimony that the property had “fungus and mold and . . . is in not habitable [sic].” Davidyan also attached a declaration “which discussed the mold