 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Davila v. Nickell10/26/2005
including two interrelated defenses: statute of limitations and res judicata.
On the first day of trial, the Louies requested the court to rule on their res judicata defense in an initial bifurcated proceeding, claiming Barraza's July 2000 action was barred as a matter of law by the prior voluntary dismissal of the first lawsuit. After a lengthy discussion, the court declined to grant this motion, agreeing with arguments by plaintiffs' counsel that the res judicata and statute of limitations issues required the resolution of factual issues as to the October 1997 settlement agreement and whether the Louies were parties to the agreement under an agency theory.
At the conclusion of the six-week trial, the Louies reasserted their res judicata defense in a motion for non-suit, again requesting the court find in their favor on the res judicata and statute of limitations defenses as a matter of law. The court denied the motion, explaining, "I think you have a situation where Mr. Rumjahn has been a friend and advisor and intimately involved in all of the businesses of the Louies who, in fact, rely upon his advice and judgment. And I feel there is no problem with respect to the Louies, I think that is up to the jury to look at all of the facts in that case and determine whether the statute of limitations [and res judicata defenses] appl to them . . . I'm going to deny that motion for non-suit. [ ] Once again, I think in a jury trial, you let the jurors-they are the ones who look at all of the facts, what each individual-each individual's participation was and who is involved in these things. [ ] I can't weigh the credibility, I cannot look at the evidence and utilize it in making a decision. I can't look at the weight of the evidence that has been presented. I can't judge the credibility of the people who have testified in the trial. I'm going to let the jury decide it."
In response, the Louies' counsel said, "I understand. I'm not going to disagree . . . ." The Louies' counsel argued, however, that the Louies could not be bound by the settlement agreement on an agency theory because Code of Civil Procedure section 360.5 requires a "personal signature" to waive the statute of limitations. The court rejected this argument, and the Louies do not reassert this specific argument on appeal.
B. The Louies' Non-suit Motion on Res Judicata Defense
The Louies first contend the court erred in denying their motion to dismiss Barraza's action based on their res judicata defense.
Generally, a dismissal with prejudice bars a later action on the same claim. (Roybal v. University Ford (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1080, 1085-1086.) Because a dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment in the defendants' favor, a party is barred by the res judicata doctrine from bringing the same claim in a subsequent action. (Ibid.) At trial, Barraza sought to avoid this defense by presenting evidence that all of the defendants (including the Louies through their agents) agreed in the October 1997 settlement agreement that Barraza could refile the action without limitation if defendants breached their promises, and that defendants breached their promise to pay for Barraza's past and future medical expenses arising from the accident.
On appeal, the Louies do not dispute that the res judicata defense may be waived by a party potentially benefited by the defense. Nor do they dispute there is substantial evidence to support that: (1) the Louies were parties to the October 1997 settlement agreement on an agency theory; (2) defendants breached their agreement to pay for Barraza's medical expenses; and (3) under the contract terms, this breach permitted Barraza to file the insta
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|