Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23VECV00266, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23VECV00266    Hearing Date: April 11, 2023    Dept: W

WOLFRAM ERMEL v. MARTIAL ETAME

demurrer to the complaint

Date of Hearing:        April 11, 2023                                     Trial Date:       None set.

Department:              W                                                        Case No.:        23VECV00266

Moving Party:            Defendant Martial Etame

Responding Party:     Plaintiff Wolfram Ermel  

Meet and Confer:      Yes. (Etame Decl. ¶¶2-3.)

BACKGROUND

On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff Wolfram Ermel filed a complaint against Defendant Martial Etame asserting causes of action for fraud/deceit and libel of title/trade libel. Plaintiff Ermel alleges Defendant fraudulently obtained a default judgment against Plaintiff in a separate action and after fraudulently obtaining the default judgment, Defendant obtained fraudulent and invalid recordings of the judgment.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendant Martial Etame’s Demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Martial Etame demurs to the complaint 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.” [Citation.] “A predictable doctrine of res judicata benefits both the parties and the courts because it ‘seeks to curtail multiple litigation causing vexation and expense to the parties and wasted effort and expense in judicial administration.” [Citation.]” (Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp.¿(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 675, 683.)   

“A prior judgment is not¿res¿judicata¿on a subsequent action unless three¿elements¿are satisfied:¿‘(1) the issues decided in the prior adjudication are identical with those presented in the later action; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior action; and (3) the party against whom the plea is raised was a party or was in privity with a party to the prior adjudication. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 685-86.)  “To prevent piecemeal litigation, the doctrine of res judicata also applies to bar a second suit arising out of the same factual situation involving matters which were relevant and within the same scope of the first action, which thus could have been raised in the first suit. [Citation.]” (Duffy v. City of Long Beach (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 1352, 1257-58.) (Italics in original.)  

Defendant Etame contends Etame previously brought an action against Plaintiff in which judgment was entered in their favor. (See Martial Etame v. Wolfram Ermel, BC679337.) The court had entered default judgment in Etame’s favor on June 17, 2019. The complaint was based Etame’s vehicles being stored at Ermel’s property, which at one point, Ermel cut off Etame’s access to his property and Etame’s vehicles. In this current action, Ermel has brought suit against Etame for allegedly fraudulently obtaining a default judgment in that matter.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues demurrer is not the proper basis for determining whether res judicata applies and the matter is still pending as to the Code of Civil Procedure 473(d) motion. Moreover, the claims are not identical because the final ruling in BC679337 was not plead in the instant matter as that was regarding Ermel’s 473(b) and 473.5 motion, not a 473d “set aside the judgment for fraud” issue.

First, the court notes demurrer is a proper forum for res judicata. Next, the court finds Defendant Etame has not established all the elements for res judicata. Although both Plaintiff and Defendant were parties to the prior litigation and the causes of action in both are based on the same primary rights, which could have been raised in the prior action had Plaintiff Ermel properly answered, it is unclear whether there was a judgment on the merits at this time. Although Plaintiff Ermel’s appeal was denied, Ermel still has a pending motion to set aside with the trial court in BC679337. At this time, the court does not find the instant action is barred by res judicata.

Accordingly, Defendant Etame’s demurrer is OVERRULED.