Judge: Keri G. Katz, Case: 37-2017-00048800-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 19, 2023

10/20/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-74 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Keri Katz

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2017-00048800-CU-MC-CTL SAN DIEGANS FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT VS SAN YSIDRO SCHOOL DISTRICT CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The court addresses the evidentiary issues. Defendant/Real Party in Interest Julio Fonseca's request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

The court then rules as follows. Defendant/Real Party in Interest Julio Fonseca's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.

Again addressing a procedural issue, on September 17, 2021, this court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. However, a third amended complaint was never separately filed in the court file. The court treats the Verified Third Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff's moving papers on Plaintiff's motion to amend [ROA 133] as the operative pleading. Plaintiff also attaches the Verified Third Amended Complaint as Exhibit A to Plaintiff's opposing papers on this motion.

Plaintiff's Verified Third Amended Complaint alleges four causes of action against all Defendants, including Fonseca. The first cause of action for 'Violation of Open-Government Laws' second cause of action for 'Illegality of Disbursement Caused by Defendants' third cause of action for 'Illegality of Defendants' Conduct as Described in State Audit Report' and fourth cause of action for 'Violation of Conflict of Interest Laws.' Fonseca argues that all causes of action are barred by collateral estoppel/issue preclusion. Specifically, Fonseca argues that the opinion of the Court of Appeal in San Diegans for Open Government v. Fonseca ('Fonseca') (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 426, and this court's ruling on Defendant San Ysidro School District's motion for summary judgment on the issue of Plaintiff's standing in this case [ROA 235], collaterally estop Plaintiff from establishing standing as against Fonseca.

DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813 summarizes the applicable law.

In fairness to the Court of Appeal, our terminology in discussing the preclusive effect of judgments has been inconsistent and may have caused some confusion. We have frequently used 'res judicata' as an umbrella term encompassing both claim preclusion and issue preclusion, which we described as two separate 'aspects' of an overarching doctrine. (E.g., Boeken, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 797, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 806, 230 P.3d 342; Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion (1962) 58 Cal.2d 601, 604, 25 Cal.Rptr. 559, 375 P.2d 439 (Teitelbaum Furs ).) Claim preclusion, the ' ' 'primary aspect' ' ' of res judicata, acts to bar claims that were, or should have been, advanced in a previous suit involving the same parties. (Boeken, at p. 797, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 806, 230 P.3d 342.) Issue preclusion, the ' ' 'secondary aspect' ' ' historically called collateral estoppel, describes the bar on relitigating issues that Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3019528  6 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SAN DIEGANS FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT VS SAN YSIDRO  37-2017-00048800-CU-MC-CTL were argued and decided in the first suit. (Ibid.) We have sometimes described 'res judicata' as synonymous with claim preclusion, while reserving the term 'collateral estoppel' for issue preclusion. (See Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 51 P.3d 297 (Mycogen ).) On occasion, however, we have used the term 'res judicata' more broadly, even in a case involving only issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel. (See Bernhard v. Bank of America (1942) 19 Cal.2d 807, 813, 122 P.2d 892.) We are not the only court to sometimes use the term 'res judicata' with imprecision. (See, e.g., Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd.

of Ed. (1984) 465 U.S. 75, 77, fn. 1, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56.) To avoid future confusion, we will follow the example of other courts and use the terms 'claim preclusion' to describe the primary aspect of the res judicata doctrine and 'issue preclusion' to encompass the notion of collateral estoppel. (See ibid.) It is important to distinguish these two types of preclusion because they have different requirements.

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, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 896, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 51 P.3d 297.) 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. (Ibid.; In re Crow (1971) 4 Cal.3d 613, 622, 94 Cal.Rptr. 254, 483 P.2d 1206; Teitelbaum Furs, supra, 58 Cal.2d at p. 604, 25 Cal.Rptr. 559, 375 P.2d 439.) If claim preclusion is established, it operates to bar relitigation of the claim altogether.

Issue preclusion prohibits the relitigation of issues argued and decided in a previous case, even if the second suit raises different causes of action. (Mycogen, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 896, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 51 P.3d 297.) Under issue preclusion, the prior judgment conclusively resolves an issue actually litigated and determined in the first action. (Boeken, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 797, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 806, 230 P.3d 342.) There is a limit to the reach of issue preclusion, however. In accordance with due process, it can be asserted only against a party to the first lawsuit, or one in privity with a party.

(Bernhard v. Bank of America, supra, 19 Cal.2d at p. 812, 122 P.2d 892.) DKN Holdings, 61 Cal.4th at 823–824.

Lucido v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335 sets forth the showing required for collateral estoppel/issue preclusion.

Collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of issues argued and decided in prior proceedings. (Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co., Ltd. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 601, 604 [25 Cal.Rptr. 559, 375 P.2d 439].) Traditionally, we have applied the doctrine only if several threshold requirements are fulfilled. First, the issue sought to be precluded from relitigation must be identical to that decided in a former proceeding.

Second, this issue must have been actually litigated in the former proceeding. Third, it must have been necessarily decided in the former proceeding. Fourth, the decision in the former proceeding must be final and on the merits. Finally, the party against whom preclusion is sought must be the same as, or in privity with, the party to the former proceeding. (Sims, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 484; People v. Taylor (1974) 12 Cal.3d 686, 691 [117 Cal.Rptr. 70, 527 P.2d 622].) The party asserting collateral estoppel bears the burden of establishing these requirements. (See, e.g., Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 257 [142 Cal.Rptr. 414, 572 P.2d 28].) Lucido, 51 Cal.3d at 341.

Addressing the first element for collateral estoppel/issue preclusion, the court finds the standing issue presented in this case identical to that in Fonseca. Fonseca involved the same plaintiff, San Diegans for Open Government (SDOG), the same defendant, Julio Fonseca, and the same issue – SDOG's standing to pursue claims against Fonseca based on an alleged illegal disbursement of SYSD funds. The facts giving rise to SDOG's claims against Fonseca in Fonseca arise from the same events as are at issue in the case before this court. Plaintiff's arguments that SDOG's claims in the two cases are based on Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3019528  6 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SAN DIEGANS FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT VS SAN YSIDRO  37-2017-00048800-CU-MC-CTL different facts are of no moment because the issue of standing decided in Fonseca is identical to the issue of standing in this case. As to the second and third elements, the court finds the issue of SDOG's standing was actually litigated and necessarily decided in Fonseca. The holding in Fonseca is stated by the court as follows: 'we conclude that SDOG did not meet the taxpayer requirements for standing under section 526a.' Fonseca, 64 Cal.App.5th at 428. With respect to the fourth element, the court finds the disposition on appeal sufficient to establish a decision final on its merits. The court is not persuaded by Plaintiff's argument that Plaintiff was never served with a final judgment in Fonseca. The court finds the opinion of the Court of Appeal sufficient to satisfy the Restatement Second of Judgments-based criteria set forth in Sandoval v. Superior Court (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 932, 936 (i.e., 'sufficiently firm'). On the last factor, there is no dispute that the party against whom preclusion is sought (SDOG) is identical to the party in the prior proceeding. The court is not persuaded by Plaintiff's public-interest exception and other standing arguments as these were rejected in Fonseca. The court finds Fonseca establishes that all of Plaintiff's claims are barred by collateral estoppel.

In light of this ruling, the court does not reach Fonseca's arguments based on this court's ruling on SYSD's motion for summary judgment.

This ruling completely disposes of this matter. Counsel for Defendant/Respondent San Ysidro School District to submit a proposed judgment within 10 days of this ruling. The hearing on petition set for November 22, 2023, is vacated.

If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3019528  6