Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 23SMCV03134, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03134    Hearing Date: April 10, 2024    Dept: I

This is one of a number of cases between two brothers.  According to the defense, this is one of five related cases—cases that have (except this one) been litigated and arbitrated.  The court has inquired about the notice of related cases and has been informed that it should consider the matter given that the judges in the other cases are not available.  The court will DENY the notice of related case.  All of the other cases have been resolved—at least at the trial level—and the judges who presided over them do not appear to be available to preside over this case.  Given that, the court sees no advantage to relating the cases.  (The court notes that the major purpose of relating cases is judicial efficiency—to allow discovery to be cross-admissible and avoid conflicting procedural rulings.  There is also some advantage to having one judge control the whole constellation of cases.  Those advantages are absent here.)

Turning then, to the merits, defendant contends that the matter is barred by res judicata and statute of limitations.  He claims that other suits involve the same jewelry box (the Kashet) and has been litigated.  Defendant states that the matter has been dismissed time and again.  Plaintiff contends that the arbitration did not resolve everything because after the arbitration was over, defendant continued to do bad things.

Plaintiff notes that the Kashet was sealed on February 20, 2017—after the arbitration had concluded.  Accordingly, plaintiff states that the arbitration could not have litigated anything in the Kashet.  Plaintiff gives various reasons why the other cases are also different.  The gist of the opposition is that plaintiff is now contending that the parties agreed that the Kashet would be opened in front of a neutral person at an appropriate time, but that defendant refuses to do so.  It is not, according to plaintiff, about who owns the contents of the box.  At most, plaintiff contends, there might be a plea in abatement, but there is no res judicata.

The court believes that the matter will likely be barred by the prior litigation, either now or when it becomes final (assuming no reversal).  However, the court does not know what is in the Kashet.  Defendant contends that it is jewelry that has already been the subject of litigation.  But the court does not know that to be the case; for all the court knows plaintiff’s wedding band is in the Kashet.  The court notes that plaintiff—in an event to avoid res judicata perhaps—seems to argue that this case is different because all he seeks is to have the Kashet opened in front of him with a neutral person so he can see what is inside.  The court assumes that there is no inventory that was taken at the time the Kashet was sealed.  Absent an inventory at sealing, the court does not know if what is inside is the jewelry already at issue in the other cases or plaintiff’s wedding ring.

The court will discuss with the parties whether there is a mechanism to open the Kashet in front of a witness and catalogue what is inside.  At that point, the court believes the res judicata or abatement argument might well be ripe.  And if it is, this case will be dismissed or stayed and the court would not expect plaintiff to bring another suit.  If the Kashet has been opened already, the court will inquire whether defendant will present an inventory of its contents to plaintiff.  If there was an inventory when the Kashet was sealed, then it would seem that the res judicata or abatement motions would be ripe immediately, and the court will discuss that with the parties.