Pyle

facts is limited to those pled in the complaint, together with facts judicially noticeable.” (Tri-County Special Educ. Local Plan Area v. County of Tuolumne (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 563, 569.) In particular, we have taken judicial notice of our prior decision (Pyle v. Moles (May 8, 2012, F060873) [nonpub. opn.]; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b)(1)) “in deciding whether to sustain a demurrer based upon res judicata” (Carroll v. Puritan Leasing Co. (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 481, 486; see Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459).

2. In May 2008, Pyle determined that Rastegar ceased farming. According to Pyle, Rastegar was no longer at the property and stopped paying the person he had hired to irrigate the vineyards. Without informing Rastegar, Pyle entered into a contract with E & J Gallo Winery (Gallo) on July 7, 2008, for the grapes growing in the vineyards. Thereafter, on July 16, 2008, Rastegar entered into a contract with Caruthers Packing Company (Caruthers) for the raisin crop he was growing under the lease with the Pyles. On July 18, 2008, Pyle sent a demand letter to Rastegar for payment of $5,538 for electricity and irrigation water. On or around August 2, 2008, he sent another letter…