Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2020-00015790-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 11, 2024

04/12/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other Real Property Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2020-00015790-CU-OR-CTL MONTEZ VS US BANK NA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant US Bank NA's Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Summary Adjudication is granted.

The moving party on a motion for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) If satisfied, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make his or her own prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of fact. (Id.) 'There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.' (Id.) When a party opposing summary judgment fails to include a separate statement or the separate statement fails to unequivocally state which facts are disputed, the facts in the moving party's separate statement are deemed undisputed. (Thompson v. Ioane (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1180, 1186 n.4 (citing Carolyn v. Orange Park Community Assn. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1094).) The California Supreme Court has articulated the standard for res judicata: Collateral estoppel is one of two aspects of the doctrine of res judicata. In its narrowest form, res judicata precludes parties or their privies from relitigating a cause of action finally resolved in a prior proceeding.

[Citation.] But res judicata also includes a broader principle, commonly termed collateral estoppel, under which an issue necessarily decided in prior litigation may be conclusively determined as against the parties thereto or their privies in a subsequent lawsuit on a different cause of action. [Citation.] Thus, res judicata does not merely bar relitigation of identical claims or causes of action. Instead, in its collateral estoppel aspect, the doctrine may also preclude a party to prior litigation from redisputing issues therein decided against him, even when those issues bear on different claims raised in a later case. Moreover, because the estoppel need not be mutual, it is not necessary that the earlier and later proceedings involve the identical parties or their privies. Only the party against whom the doctrine is invoked must be bound by the prior proceeding.

(Vandenberg v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 815, 828 (alterations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original).) For collateral estoppel/res judicata purposes, '[a] federal judgment has the same effect in the courts of this state as it would have in a federal court.' (Lumpkin v. Jordan (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1230 (quotation marks and alterations omitted).) 'Three elements must exist for res judicata (or claim Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3060504  7 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  MONTEZ VS US BANK NA [IMAGED]  37-2020-00015790-CU-OR-CTL preclusion) to apply: (1) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; (2) the present proceeding is on the same cause of action as the prior proceeding; and (3) the parties in the present proceeding or parties in privity with them were parties to the prior proceeding. [Citation.] To put it another way, res judicata or claim preclusion arises if a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties or their privies (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit.' (Association of Irritated Residents v. Department of Conservation (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1202, 1219 (alterations and quotation marks omitted).) Here, all three of these elements are met. (UMF 1-11.) Plaintiff has previously filed two federal lawsuits against her former loan servicers, Chase Home Finance LLC and JPMorgan Chase, N.A., raising the same claims and arguments. Both lawsuits resulted in final judgments dismissing Plaintiff's claims.

Finally, although Defendant was not a party to the prior federal lawsuits, it stands in privity with those defendants because of its status as the Deed of Trust's beneficiary. Even absent such privity, Defendant may invoke res judicata against Plaintiff. (See Vandenberg, 21 Cal.4th at 828-29 ('[T]he collateral estoppel doctrine may allow one who was not a party to prior litigation to take advantage, in a later unrelated matter, of findings made against his current adversary in the earlier proceeding.).) As a separate and independent basis for the Court's ruling, the Court finds that Defendant has met its initial prima facie burden to show that there are no triable issues of material fact on any of the four causes of action asserted by Plaintiff. Plaintiff, now having the burden, has failed to show a triable issue of material fact on any of the causes of action alleged in the First Amended Complaint.

Defendant's evidentiary objections are sustained. All requests for judicial notice are granted.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3060504  7