Background Report, Get contact info & detailed background reports on anyone today at MyLife; Search others now or check & edit your own background report. (Superior Court of San Diego County, No. , Raymond F. Zvetina, Judge.) (Opinion by Haller, J., with Huffman, Acting P. J., and McIntyre, J., concurring.) COUNSEL. Frantz & Geraci, Alan L. Geraci and Giles Townsend for Defendants and Appellants. & Prof. Code, §§ ), claiming the motel was a public nuisance and seeking. View Susan Fox, CLPF #84, NCG’S profile on LinkedIn, the world's largest professional community. Susan has 3 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover Susan Title: CA Licensed Professional .
The bankruptcy court in that case determined that 3 Mrs. Lopez appealed 13 the judgment and the amended judgment of the Superior Court. The 14 California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, entered an 15 opinion on January 23, , affirming in part and reversing in 16 part. Lopez then filed a petition for 18 review with the Supreme Court of California, which was denied on 19 April 15, Lopez, Alan L.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U. Whether the bankruptcy court erred when it ruled on summary 15 judgment based on the record before it. When we review a ruling de novo, we give no 22 deference to the bankruptcy court's decision.
Sebelius, F. Miller v. Hinkson, F. A party 12 seeking summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of 13 demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, 14 and establishing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of 15 law as to those matters upon which it has the burden of proof.
Catrett, U. The court 17 must view the evidence presented on the motion in the light most 18 favorable to the opposing party. Avalos v. Baca, F. The opposing party must then make a sufficient 21 showing on all matters placed in issue by the motion as to which 22 it has the burden of proof at trial.
Celotex Corp. Liberty Lobby, Inc. Grogan v. Kobrin In re Harmon , F. It bars successive litigation of an issue 12 or fact that was actually litigated and resolved in a prior 13 judgment. Grogan at Marrese v. In 17 California, the requirements for issue preclusion are that 18 1 the issue must be identical to that decided in the former 19 proceeding, 2 the issue must have actually been litigated in 20 the prior proceeding, 3 the issue must have been necessarily 21 decided, 4 the decision in the prior proceeding must be final 22 and on the merits, and 5 the party against whom preclusion is 23 24 5 In his brief and statement of issues, Lopez repeatedly 25 refers to the doctrine of res judicata.
Although he appears to use res judicata and issue preclusion interchangeably, these are 26 actually two related but distinct doctrines. Cal-Micro, Inc. Cantrell 2 In re Cantrell , F. Identical Issues 4 The first element of issue preclusion requires that 5 identical issues were decided in the former proceeding.
Sabban In re Sabban , F. Field v. Mans, U. Permanente Med. The Final Amended Judgment contains 13 specific findings that Lopez intentionally made false 14 representations to Vojo Raicevic and Andjelka Raicevic. It also 15 states that Lopez knew the representations were false, or acted 16 recklessly without regard for the truth,6 and he intended Vojo 17 Raicevic and Andjelka Raicevic to rely on them.
Finally, the 18 Final Amended Judgment relates that Vojo Raicevic and Anjelka 19 Raicevic relied on the representations and their reliance was a 20 substantial factor in causing their damages. Household Credit Servs. Ettell 28 In re Ettell , F. Necessarily Decided 2 The issue of fraud was also necessarily decided in the Final 3 Amended Judgment because the jury only awarded compensatory 4 damages on the two causes of action for intentional 5 misrepresentation.
The damages 9 awarded are therefore premised on the intentional 10 misrepresentation causes of action and those issues were 11 necessarily decided. The third element for issue preclusion is 12 satisfied. Final Decision on the Merits 14 The fourth element for issue preclusion is also satisfied 15 because the Final Amended Judgment is a final decision on the 16 merits. It is a judgment on the merits because it followed after 17 an extensive jury trial.
It has also now become final. Under 18 California law, a judgment is not final for preclusion purposes 19 while it is still open to attack through appeal. Geographic 20 Expeditions, Inc. Union Fire Ins. Stites Prof. Law Corp. Fotomat Corp. Against the Same Party 4 The final threshold element for issue preclusion requires 5 that the party against whom issue preclusion is sought is the 6 same as the party in the prior litigation.
The Raicevics sought 7 to apply issue preclusion against Lopez through their summary 8 judgment motion. All five of the threshold 13 elements for the application of issue preclusion under California 14 law are satisfied and the doctrine was available to the 15 bankruptcy court.
Miller, 20 39 F. Public Policy 22 After all of the threshold elements of issue preclusion are 23 satisfied, the court then looks to the public policies underlying 24 the doctrine to determine whether it should be applied in a 25 particular circumstance.
While some of the remedies under these abatement laws are of [83 Cal. People ex rel. Van de Kamp v. American Art Enterprises, Inc.
Casa Co. Thus, we conclude the court erred in ruling that the stipulated injunction is binding on bona fide purchasers. The terms of the stipulated injunction, including those dealing with prostitution and drug sales activities, are not in rem in character and do not run with the land. These terms, requiring Owners to do certain things and refrain from doing others, are aimed at eliminating the activities that make the property a nuisance. That is in keeping with the primary goal of the public nuisance abatement acts"to 'reform' the property and insure that the nuisance is abated.
Conrad 55 Cal. Of course, the terms of the stipulated injunction are binding on those who are agents of Owners or those who act in concert with Owners and have notice.
But the whole effect of this is simply to make the injunction effectual against all through whom the enjoined party may act, and to prevent the prohibited action by persons acting in concert with or in support of the claim of the enjoined party, who are in fact his aiders and abetters.
As we have said, this practice is thoroughly settled and approved by the courts, and there is a fair foundation for [83 Cal. Board, supra, U. At issue chiefly is the statutory language of Penal Code section , which provides: "Whenever there is reason to believe that a nuisance as defined in this article is kept, maintained or is in existence in any county, the district attorney, in the name of the people of the State of California, shall, or the city attorney of an incorporated city City claims the italicized words indicate legislative intent that an injunction issued under the Red Light Abatement Law is binding on all successors in interest, including bona fide purchasers.
City is mistaken. A court's overriding purpose in construing a statute is to ascertain legislative intent and to give the statute a reasonable construction conforming to that intent. People v. Thomas 4 Cal. In interpreting a statute to determine legislative intent, a court looks first to the words of the statute. Pieters 52 Cal. The first group consists of "the person conducting or maintaining [the nuisance]"the operators of the nuisance.
The second group is comprised of "the owner, lessee or agent of the building, or place Any other construction would ignore the comma separating the two groups. Random House, Dict. Their presence or absence in a statute is a factor to be considered in its interpretation. Judge 50 Cal. Travelers Indemnity Co.
Thus, when read in conjunction with each other, Penal Code sections and explicitly provide all "assignees" or successors in interest of those "conducting or maintaining" the nuisance are to be "perpetually enjoin[ed]. Thus, the statutes do not make Red Light Abatement Law injunctions binding on bona fide arm's-length purchasers. Nor can we imply a legislative intent to do so.
An intention to legislate by implication is not to be presumed. Krater v. City of Los Angeles Cal. In construing a statute, we do not insert words into it as this would "violate the cardinal rule that courts may not add provisions to a statute. In interpreting the phrase "to perpetually enjoin," we are mindful of the canon to avoid absurd results and conclude the only sensible construction is that the Legislature was providing for permanent injunctions as to those who are enjoined.
If we were to adopt the "never ceasing" definition of "perpetual" advanced by City, we would transform such injunctions into in rem remedies that run with the land, which is contrary to the law. The problem with City's construction is that it purports to include within the sweep of a Red Light Abatement Law injunction some who are not subject to it.
As indicated above, an injunction is binding only on the parties to an action or those acting in concert with them, and an arm's-length bona fide purchaser is not in this group. An examination of the predecessor to Penal Code section et seq.
In , the Legislature enacted "An act declaring all buildings and places nuisances wherein or upon which acts of lewdness, assignation or prostitution are held or occur or which are used for such purposes, and providing for the abatement and prevention of such nuisances by injunction and otherwise.
All Case Law. All Marketing Tax Tech. Featured Speakers Dawn Brolin. Richard Cordray. Jack Park. Eric L. Dan K. Moore Distinguished Professor. David Windecher. Speakers Hon. Gene Wedoff Ret. Mike Beitcher FindLaw. Stephen Berken Berken Cloyes. Orcutt PC. Brewer Attorney-at-Law. John C. Colwell San Diego, CA. Charles W. Marc Dann Dann Law. Jenny Doling J.
Attorney - Certified Bankruptcy Specialist. Claude Ducloux. Director of Government Affairs.