Judge: James L. Crandall, Case: 22-1260999, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Demurrer to Complaint

Defendant Rosalie Baclet’s demurrer to the first cause of action for Quiet Title and second cause of action for Breach of Contract alleged in the Complaint filed by plaintiff Jeffrey L. Baclet is SUSTAINED with 20-days leave to amend.

Defendants Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) of Exhibits 1 through 8 is GRANTED.

Defendant demurs to both the first cause of action for Quiet Title and second cause of action for Breach of Contract on the grounds of res judicata.

“ ‘Res judicata’ describes the preclusive effect of a final judgment on the merits. Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.” (Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896 (Mycogen). It “acts to bar claims that were, or should have been, advanced in a previous suit involving the same parties.” (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824.)

“Claim preclusion arises if a second suit involves: (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit. [Citations.] If claim preclusion is established, it operates to bar relitigation of the claim altogether.” (Ibid.) “Under this doctrine, all claims based on the same cause of action must be decided in a single suit; if not brought initially, they may not be raised at a later date.” (Mycogen, supra, at p. 897.) “[T]he violation of a single primary right gives rise to but a single cause of action.” (Id. at 904.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by claim preclusion because it raises the same allegations as Plaintiff’s prior Complaint against Defendant entitled Jeffrey L. Baclet v. Rosalie Baclet, et al., Case No. 30-2019-01083668 filed on July 16, 2019 (“2019 Case”). (RJN Ex. 1.) The 2019 Case involved the same parties, plaintiff Jeffrey L. Baclet and defendant Rosalie Baclet. (RJN Ex. 1.)

In the 2019 Case, Plaintiff alleged cause of action for Quiet Title and Fraudulent False Promise. (RJN Ex. 1.) In the 2019 Case, Plaintiff’ Quiet Title cause of action was based on allegations that “Plaintiff JEFFREY L. BACLET does not hold record title to any of the five California properties identified in paragraph 5 above, however he claims an interest in each property based on fraud committed by Defendant ROSALIE BACLET” and that “On or about November of 2001, Defendant ROSALIE BACLET made a promise to Plaintiff JEFFREY L. BACLET that she would bequest all six California properties to him, and that she would not sell the properties without his prior consent and he would be entitled to fifty percent of the proceeds of any sale.” (RJN Ex. 1, ¶¶ 20, 21.)

However, “Defendant ROSALIE BACLET did not perform her promised act because she sold the Buttonwood Street property on June 3, 2016 without any advance notice to Plaintiff JEFFREY L. BACLET, nor did she split the proceeds of the sale with him” and Plaintiff was “harmed because he lost his remainderman interest in the Buttonwood Street property and/or the fifty percent sale proceeds.” (RJN Ex. 1, ¶¶ 24, 25.)

Similarly, here, Plaintiff alleges that “The Will of Rosalie Baclet designates the primary beneficiary to be Plaintiff . . . therefore upon the passing of Rosalie, all rights to title and ownership of [] Rosalie’s California properties are to pass to Plaintiff. This should have included the Buttonwood Street property; however Rosalie sold the Buttonwood Street property on June 3, 216.” (Complaint, ¶ 28.)

The Complaint further alleges that “Plaintiff claims fifty percent ownership right to all six California properties” and the “sale of the Buttonwood Street property has instilled in the Plaintiff a justifiable concern that his interest as remaindeman in the remaining five of the California real properties, currently in Rosalie’s possession, would be threatened . . .” (Complaint, ¶¶ 30, 31.) Therefore, the quiet title claims alleged in the 2019 Case and the instant case are based on the same allegations.

As for the second cause of action, instead of a Fraudulent False Promise, here, Plaintiff alleges a Breach of Contract cause of action. The Fraudulent False Promise claim in the 2019 Case is based on the allegation that “On or about November of 2001, Defendant ROSALIE BACLET made a promise to Plaintiff JEFFREY L. BACLET that she would bequest all six California properties to him, and that she would not sell the properties without his prior consent and he would be entitled to fifty percent of the proceeds of any sale.” (RJN Ex. 1, ¶ 30.) Plaintiff further alleged that “Defendant ROSALIE BACLET did not perform her promised act because she sold the Buttonwood Street property on June 3, 2016 without any advance notice to Plaintiff JEFFREY L. BACLET, nor did she split the proceeds of the sale with him. Plaintiff JEFFREY L. BACLET first learned of the sale on or about August 12, 2017.” (RJN Ex. 1, ¶ 33.)

The 2019 Case also alleged that “Plaintiff JEFFREY L. BACLET was harmed because he lost his remainderman interest in the Buttonwood Street property and/or the fifty percent sale proceeds.” (RJN Ex. 1, ¶ 34.)

The Breach of Contract cause of action here similarly alleges that: “By naming Plaintiff primary beneficiary of Rosalie’s Estate in her Will, Plaintiff is entitled to full use and rights in the six California real properties listed as part of Rosalie’s estate upon the passing of the latter. (Complaint, ¶ 39.)

The Complaint further alleges that “The sale of the Buttonwood Street property constitutes a violation of Cal. Civil code § 3300 by denying the right of Plaintiff, as remainderman to aforementioned property as one of six from the life estate created by contract, to enjoy full right and use of property following the passing of Rosalie. (Complaint, ¶ 39.) Therefore, although the same legal theory is not alleged here as was in the 2019 Case, the same primary right is involved in both actions.

Defendant has also shown that in the 2019 Case, the court ruled that the two causes of action were barred by res judicata based on a “2/10/2013 Order and 8/9/2013 Order in the reopened Nevada Probate Action.” (RJN, Ex. 7.)

Accordingly, Defendant has sufficiently shown that res judicata bars re-litigation of Plaintiff’s claims in this action.

Plaintiff has not opposed the demurrer; accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED with 20-days leave to amend.

Defendant to give notice.

Future hearing events

11/9/22 – CMC