Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24STCV08436, Date: 2025-02-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV08436    Hearing Date: February 19, 2025    Dept: 34

Defendants Kenneth Smith and Rachel Smith’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

Background

            On April 3, 2024, Plaintiff Olivia Sandoval (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Kenneth Smith and Rachel Smith (“Defendants”) arising from automobile accident alleging causes of action for:

1.                 Negligence; and

2.                 Motor Vehicle Owner Liability – Permissive Use of Vehicle.

On August 12, 2024, the court found cases 24STCV07193 and 24STCV08436 related, assigning 24STCV07193 as the lead case.

On October 10, 2024, Defendants filed an answer.

On January 13, 2025, Defendants filed this Motion to Dismiss. On February 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On February 13, 2025, Defendants filed a reply.

Legal Standard

            A motion to dismiss an action is a proper method of raising the question that the causes of action are res judicata and such motion may be supported by affidavits setting forth facts which tend to prove the grounds of the motion. (Best v. Fitzgerald¿(1947) 81 Cal.App.2d 965, 967.) 

Discussion

            Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that it is barred by res judicata as Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants have already been adjudicated in Small Claims Court. (Motion, at p. 3.)

            The doctrine of res judicata applies if (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. (Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc.¿(2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562, 577.) 

            Defendants contend that on July 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Small Claims Court case alleging that Plaintiff sustained property damage as a result of Defendants’ negligence by failing to stop at a red traffic light. (Motion, at p. 3; Maxwell Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) On November 18, 2022, the Small Claims case went to trial, and the court entered a judgment finding that Defendants do not owe Plaintiff any money on Plaintiff’s claims which was final judgment on the merits. (Maxwell Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. B.) Defendants also argue that Plaintiff is attempting to relitigate the same negligence claims arising from the same motor vehicle accident. (Id., at p. 5.) Lastly, Defendants contend that in both actions Plaintiff brought her claims against Defendants. (Ibid.)

            In opposition, Plaintiff concedes that the parties in the Small Claims case and current action are the same. (Opp., at p. 5.) However, Plaintiff argues that there was not a final judgment on the merits in the Small Claims case as the judgment rendered there does not make any specific findings regarding Defendants’ negligence. (Id., at p. 3.) As such, Plaintiff argues that without any actual evidence regarding the basis for the Small Claims judgment, it cannot be considered a judgment “on the merits” of Plaintiff’s negligence claim as a matter of law. (Ibid.) Plaintiff also argues the property damage claim in the Small Claims case and the bodily injury claim in this action are separate causes of action. (Id., at pp. 4-5.)

            In reply, Defendants argue that Plaintiff is piecemealing by splitting a single cause of action on a different legal theory or different relief to relitigate Plaintiff’s Small Claims case. (Reply, at pp. 1-2.)

            Code of Civil Procedure, section 1908, subdivision (a) codifies the res judicata and claim preclusion doctrine and provides that “[a] judgment or final order in an action or special proceeding” is conclusive between the parties and their successors in interests as to “the matter directly adjudicated.” (Needelman v. DeWolf Realty Co., Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 750, 757.) “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.” (Id., at p. 757 [citations omitted].)

            “[T]he judgment or order is, in respect to the matter directly adjudged, conclusive between the parties and their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating for the same thing under the same title and in the same capacity, provided they have notice, actual or constructive, of the pendency of the action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1908, subd. (a)(2).) The burden of proving that the requirements for application of res judicata have been met is upon the party seeking to assert it as a bar or estoppel. (Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 257.) 

            Here, the court finds that issues raised in Plaintiff’s complaint for this action were previously raised by the same parties in the Small Claims Court, which were actually litigated and resolved on the merits before Plaintiff filed this action. As such, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to dismissal pursuant to res judicata.

Conclusion