Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV15450, Date: 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15450    Hearing Date: October 14, 2022    Dept: 28

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Youngjae Lee’s Demurrer to Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff Paolo Rossi’s Cross-Complaint

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On May 10, 2022, Plaintiff Youngjae Lee (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Paolo Rossi (“Rossi”) and SPR, Inc. (“SPR”) for battery, assault and vicarious liability.

On July 15, 2022, Defendant filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant It’s Boba Time (“IBT”) for assault and battery (wrongfully identified in the header as assault, negligence and self-defense).

On August 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Demurrer to the Cross-Complaint to be head on October 14, 2022. On October 3, 2022, Defendant filed an opposition. On October 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Trial is currently set for November 7, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests the Court sustain the demurrer to the Cross-Complaint for all causes of action under the principles of collateral estoppel.

Defendant requests the Court overrule the demurrer to the Cross-Complaint on the basis that the issue at play have not been litigated previously.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 430.10 states: “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds: (a) The court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading; (b) The person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue; (c) There is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action; (d) There is a defect or misjoinder of parties; (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible; and (g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.”

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.)  When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context.  (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.)  In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice.  (CCP § 430.30(a).)  A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.  (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.)  Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.  (Id.)  The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.  (Hahn, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

“Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue decided at a previous proceeding ‘if (1) the issue necessarily decided at the previous [proceeding] is identical to the one which is sought to be relitigated; (2) the previous [proceeding] resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the prior [proceeding].” People v. Sims (1982) 32 Cal.3d 468, 484. “Applying collateral estoppel to establish liability in a civil case based upon a prior felony conviction is appropriate when the prior criminal case established all the elements of the civil claims. Miller v. Superior Court (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 376, 381–382.

DISCUSSION

Judicial Notice

The Court takes judicial notice of the requested documents pursuant to Evidence Code §452.

Demurrer

Defendant’s Cross-Complaint alleges that Plaintiff illegally parked his vehicle, blocking Defendant’s vehicle; Defendant witnessed Plaintiff unloading items from his vehicle, and asked Plaintiff to move his vehicle. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff then yelled at him in an aggressive manner and came within 2 inches of Defendant’s face; Defendant then swung at Plaintiff twice. Defendant hit Plaintiff’s face—Plaintiff then kicked at Defendant’s leg. Defendant alleges he then walked into his business. Plaintiff allegedly followed him. Defendant then obtained a metal rod to brandish in order to reach his vehicle but alleges that Plaintiff placed himself between Defendant’s back door and his vehicle. Defendant saw Plaintiff and then left.

Plaintiff alleges that the facts in this Cross-Complaint were already adjudicated in a felony criminal jury trial case against Defendant involving the same parties and the same incident. The trial court convicted Defendant of assault with a deadly weapon specifically in reference to the metal rod. The trial court explicitly stated that “the jury did not make a finding nor was [Defendant] charged by the People with assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury as a result of the punch landed on the victim’s mouth...the jury was never asked to render a verdict on whether or not the punch was justified as a result of self-defense, only whether the use of the metal rod was justified.” There was no ruling deciding whether the initial punch constituted assault or battery, or if it was justified under self-defense. Therefore, there is no issue of collateral estoppel in relation to that portion of the Cross-Complaint.

Plaintiff argues that it is disingenuous to argue that these are two separate incidents instead of one escalating incident. The criminal trial court was clear. The jury did not make a finding on the interaction prior to the use of the metal rod.

In order for collateral estoppel to apply the issue necessarily decided at the previous [proceeding] must be identical to the one which is sought to be relitigated and must have resulted in a final judgment on the merits. The trial court clearly held it did not rule on or consider the subject punch. The Court overrules the demurrer.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Youngjae Lee’s Demurrer to Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff Paolo Rossi’s Cross-Complaint is OVERRULED.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.