Innovative Bancorp v. diSibio
Filed 4/18/06 Innovative Bancorp v. diSibio CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| INNOVATIVE BANCORP, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LEWIS DISIBIO et al., Defendants and Appellants. | A109391 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG 04-150483) |
I.
Introduction
Lewis diSibio and Mary diSibio (appellants) appeal as cross-complainants from judgment entered in favor of respondent and cross-defendant Innovative Bancorp (Innovative). Their first amended cross-complaint (FACC) alleged, inter alia, that a settlement reached in a prior action brought by them against Innovative's predecessor in interest, Bank of Oakland (Bank) in federal court entitled Lewis diSibio et al. v. Bank of Oakland (United States District Court, 2002, No. C00-1764CRB) (Federal Action), was invalid and unenforceable. Therefore, the FACC sought to relitigate claims and issues brought against the Bank and Innovative, or claims otherwise settled in the Federal Action.
The trial court ruled as a matter of law that the dismissal with prejudice of the Federal Action based on appellants' settlement with the Bank had been confirmed by both the federal district court, and the Ninth Circuit, and therefore the FACC was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Alternatively, the court held that the underlying claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
We conclude that appellants' attack on the settlement of the Federal Action is barred by res judicata, and that the claims they seek to relitigate against Innovative in the FACC have been released by that earlier settlement.
II.
Procedural and Factual Background
Innovative filed a complaint against appellants in Los Angeles Superior Court on August 5, 2002, seeking damages for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and three causes of action based on the tort of deceit. The complaint alleged that Innovative had entered into an agreement to acquire Bank of Oakland (Bank) in 2000. During the acquisition process, Innovative became aware that appellants had initiated the Federal Action disputing the Bank's legal right to implement changes proposed in 1999 to appellants' â€
