Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV14415, Date: 2024-06-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV14415 Hearing Date: June 7, 2024 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:
Defendant William M. Lengyel’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CCP § 426.30(a).
BACKGROUND
JUSTIN BEIMFORDE, dba JUSTIN BEIMFORDE REAL ESTATE
BROKER, INC. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against WILLIAM LENGYEL (“Defendant”),
alleging that Defendant breached two contracts called, “Exclusive Right to Represent
Owner for Sale or Lease of Real Property” (listing agreements), engaging Plaintiff
as the exclusive agent for the sale of Defendant’s vested interest in the property
located at 22040 Placeritos Blvd., Santa Clarita.
Defendant brings a motion to dismiss the case because
Plaintiff incorrectly split related causes of action across two suits.
Plaintiff did not file an opposition.
LEGAL STANDARD
Defendant moves to dismiss this case, based upon
Plaintiff’s prior Complaint for Declaratory Relief against Defendants WILLIAM
M. LENGYEL and STEVEN A. LENGYEL, in Los Angeles Superior Court case
21STLC03615, in which Plaintiff obtained a default judgment based on the same contracts
and underlying factual background as this case.
Res judicata applies
as a bar to splitting a cause of action
for partial, later litigation, or relitigation of the same cause of action
based upon on another legal theory or associated with different relief, which
could have been sought in the prior action. Noble v. Draper (2008) 160
Cal.App.4th 1, 10.
The rules against splitting a cause of action are explained in the
following opinion excerpt:
The rule against
splitting a cause of action is … in part a rule of abatement and in part a rule
of res judicata.… “The primary right theory has a fairly narrow field of
application. It is invoked most often when a plaintiff attempts to divide a
primary right and enforce it in two suits. The theory prevents this result by
either of two means: (1) if the first suit is still pending when the second is
filed, the defendant in the second suit may plead that fact in abatement (Code
Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (c) [“There is another action pending between the
same parties on the same cause of action.”]; ... ); or (2) if the first suit
has terminated in a judgment on the merits adverse to the plaintiff, the
defendant in the second suit may set up that judgment as a bar under the
principles of res judicata….”
Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th
1127, 1146.
“‘A prior judgment for the plaintiff results in a merger and supersedes
the new action by a right of action on the judgment.’” Golin v. Allenby
(2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 616, 641 n.31. “If claim preclusion is established, it
operates to bar relitigation of the claim altogether.” DKN Holdings LLC v.
Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824.
Perhaps analogously, a judge properly dismissed a second action where the
plaintiff's claims were related to those asserted in the first action and
should have been filed as a compulsory cross-complaint. 5 Witkin, Cal. Proc.
6th Plead § 1220 (2024) (citing Carroll v. Import Motors (1995) 33
Cal.App.4th 1429, 1436).
ANALYSIS
Here, the Complaint is based upon the same listing
agreements as Plaintiff’s prior lawsuit having a filed Judgment. E.g., Motion
(Kirk Retz decl.), p. 7, ¶¶ 10-11. A second action based on same breach of
contract is subject to a plea of res judicata, notwithstanding different causes
of action being involved. Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28
Cal.4th 888, 907.
Plaintiff has failed to file a timely opposition and
to present good cause for an extension to file. See minutes entered 6/5/24. The
failure to file a proper and timely opposition in trial court creates a waiver
of the issues on any appeal. Cabrini Villas Homeowners Assn. v. Haghverdian
(2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 683, 693.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, the Court grants the motion for the reasons
stated.
This entire action is dismissed with prejudice.