Jackson v. Thomas
Filed 5/24/06 Jackson v. Thomas CA2/8
Opinion following rehearing
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
LEONARD JACKSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BILLY J. THOMAS et al. Defendants and Respondents. | B179486 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC 291780) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Gregory W. Alarcon, Judge. Affirmed.
Damone Martin for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Haslam & Perri, Khymberli S. Apaloo for Defendants and Respondents.
____________________________
Plaintiff Leonard Jackson appeals from the order dismissing defendant Geanette V. Thomas from his first amended complaint after the trial court sustained without leave to amend Thomas's demurrers. Because Jackson's complaint was barred by the res judicata effect of a judgment entered on a stipulated settlement from a previous related action (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6), we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY[1]
Leonard Jackson sued his sister, Geanette V. Thomas, and Thomas's ex-husband, Billy Thomas, contending that the Thomases refused to give Jackson title to a house that they took in their name for his benefit.[2] The first two causes of action sought to impose a constructive trust or a resulting trust, based on allegations that the Thomases defrauded Jackson. The third cause of action was based on the first two, and sought to cancel the 1988 deed placing title in the Thomases' name and a 2003 deed conveying title from the Thomases to two other people. The fourth cause of action sought specific performance of an October 2002 stipulated settlement (the settlement) in an earlier action brought by Jackson to obtain a constructive trust over the property.
Jackson attached a copy of the settlement to his complaint and incorporated it by reference. The settlement came from the case of Jackson v. Thomas (L.A. Super. Ct. No. BC 257799 (the first action)). It was filed with the court on November 13, 2002. The settlement stated that the Thomases would sell the property to Jackson for $170,000. Escrow was to close within 45 days from the day after the escrow agent received the necessary signed forms from the Thomases. For $3,000, Jackson could extend that period another 30 days if he gave notice before the 45-day period expired. Regardless of whether Jackson exercised that option, his â€
