Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV17642, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV17642 Hearing Date: May 3, 2024 Dept: 17
County of Los
Angeles
DEPARTMENT 17
TENTATIVE RULING
|
JUAN M CUARENTA
vs. CLAUDIA MIZUTANI et al. |
Case
No.: 23STCV17642 Hearing Date: May 3, 2024 |
Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings
is GRANTED.
On
7/27/2023, Plaintiff Juan M. Cuarenta (Plaintiff), representing himself in
propria persona filed suit against Claudia Mizutani (Defendant), alleging:
(1) slander of title; (2) cancellation of instrument; (3) constructive trust; and
(4) declaratory relief.
Now,
Defendant moves for a judgment on the pleadings.
The
motion is unopposed.
Discussion
Defendant
argues that Plaintiff’s motion is barred by res judicata/collateral estoppel.
The doctrine of res judicata precludes
the re-litigation of certain matters which have been resolved in a prior
proceeding under certain circumstances. (Brinton v. Bankers Pension
Services, Inc. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 550, 556.) “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.) “Collateral estoppel, or issue
preclusion, precludes relitigation of issues argued and decided in prior
proceedings.” (Ibid.)
“Issue
preclusion prohibits the relitigation of issues argued and decided in a
previous case, even if the second suit raises different causes of
action.” (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813,
824.) “Under issue preclusion, the prior judgment conclusively resolves
an issue actually litigated and determined in the first action.” (Id.)
“[I]ssue preclusion applies: (1) after final adjudication (2) of an identical
issue (3) actually litigated and necessarily decided in the first suit and (4)
asserted against one who was a party in the first suit or one in privity with
that party.” (Id. at 825.)
On 8/12/2020, Defendant here filed a
separate action in Case No. 20STCV30584 against Plaintiff in this case,
involving real property located at 6533 San Marcus Street Paramount, California
90723 (Subject Property). The causes of action asserted were for: (1)
partition; (2) quiet title; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) negligence; (5)
cancellation of instrument; and (6) resulting trust.
After a bench trial, judgment was entered in favor of
Defendant on all causes of action and Defendant and Plaintiff were each
determined to be 50% owners of the Subject Property.
Now, in pro per Plaintiff in
this case, has filed a lawsuit alleging that he is the true owner of the
property, and that Defendant improperly obtained title to the property with
Plaintiff’s consent.
After review, the Court agrees that
Plaintiff’s claim is barred by collateral estoppel. First, the issue here is
identical to that in the former proceeding, i.e., ownership of the Subject
Property; (2) the issue was actually, and necessarily, litigated on the merits
in the prior proceeding; and (2) that decision is final and on the merits. (DKN
Holdings LLC, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 824.)
Plaintiff’s non-opposition to the
motion is considered a concession on the merits.
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.
It is so ordered.
Dated: May
, 2024
Hon. Jon R.
Takasugi
Judge of the
Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must
send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org
by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court
website at www.lacourt.org. If a party submits
on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must
identify the party submitting on the tentative.
If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this
tentative as the final order. If the department
does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the
tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed
off calendar. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213)
633-0517.