The opinion of the court was delivered by: REVERCOMB
GEORGE H. REVERCOMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The plaintiff, D.W.S. Washington Holdings, Inc. ("Landlord"), has filed the instant suit against the defendants, Timothy E. Jackson, June R. Jackson, Yves Courbois and Clelia Courbois ("Guarantors"), who are guarantors of a commercial lease ("Lease") that was entered into between the plaintiff and Epi d'Or, Inc. ("Epi d'Or" or "Tenant"), a restaurant and District of Columbia corporation. The plaintiff seeks damages against the Guarantors arising out of the Tenant's default on the Lease. This matter is before the Court pursuant to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment.
On April 22, 1987, the plaintiff entered into a five-year lease with Tenant of the premises located at 1220 19th Street to commence on July 1, 1987. All of the defendants signed a Guaranty of Lease Agreement dated November 1986 ("Guaranty"). This Guaranty unconditionally and absolutely bound each of the Guarantors, jointly and severally, to make full, prompt and complete payment of any unpaid rent or other charges required of the Tenant under the Lease.
Within the first month after the inception of the lease term, Epi D'Or fell into arrears in its rent payments. On February 13, 1988, counsel for plaintiff forwarded a letter to Tenant which stated that
pursuant to Section 23 [of the lease],
you are hereby notified that on the third day following the receipt of this letter, your lease shall be deemed terminated and you shall be obligated to immediately quit the premises and surrender the space to the landlord.
On April 4, 1988, a judgment was obtained in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia against the Tenant for possession and $ 45,223.04 in damages, plus counsel fees.
The defendants contend that the plaintiff is precluded from bringing the instant action on the ground of res judicata. Specifically, the defendants argue that the plaintiff is precluded from seeking any damages beyond the amount of $ 45,233.04, which was the award plaintiff obtained in its April 4, 1988 judgment for possession and damages, because a claim for damages, including the amount of rent due, must be brought in a single action.
The doctrine of res judicata provides that a judgment between the same parties and their privies is a final bar to any other suit upon the same course of action, and is conclusive, not only as to all matters that have been decided in the original suit, but for all matters which with propriety could have been litigated in the first suit . . . .
In the instant case, the defendants contend that the plaintiff could have sued for all of its damages, including future rent due under the Lease, at the time that the plaintiff obtained its judgment for possession and arrearages. The ...