Little v. Estudillo

Filed 9/27/06 Little v. Estudillo CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila Fell, Judge. Reversed.

Joyce Little, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Stephen W. Hogie for Defendants and Respondents.

* * *

The trial court dismissed plaintiff Joyce Little’s lawsuit after determining her claims were barred by res judicata because Little had dismissed an earlier small claims action involving the same issues. Little contends she received no notice before trial that defendants Manuel and Adela Estudillo would raise res judicata as a defense, and the trial court should have given her the opportunity to present rebuttal evidence before dismissing her complaint.

We agree the trial court erred in sustaining the Estudillos’ res judicata defense. The Estudillos failed to raise the issue in either their answer or demurrers. Little informed the trial court she did not know res judicata would be raised, and offered to obtain documents supporting her position. In refusing Little’s offer and relying on an ex parte review of documents neither offered nor admitted into evidence, the trial court denied Little her due process rights. Accordingly, we reverse.

I

Factual and Procedural Background

Little and the Estudillos are neighbors in a residential area of Anaheim. According to Little’s complaint, around May 2000, Manuel Estudillo asked Little for permission to enter her property to cut down a tree because its branches extended onto his property. Little refused. Weeks later, Little returned home to find her trees and plants cut down or damaged. Little concluded Manuel or his agents trespassed on her property and caused the damage.

A year later, Little filed a small claims action against Manuel seeking damages for his alleged unauthorized tree cutting. Manuel cross-complained seeking $3,500 for damage to a brick fence allegedly caused by the roots of Little’s tree. Little dismissed her small claims action without prejudice due to purported illness. Estudillo’s cross-complaint proceeded, however, and the small claims court awarded him $3,500 in damages.

In June 2003, Little filed suit against Manuel for trespass and injury to her property. Little later filed an amended complaint against both of the Estudillos alleging nine causes of action, including violation of elder law statutes, trespass, intentional misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, and an injunction request. In September 2004, the court granted Little’s continuance request and set the trial for December 27, 2004. Just four days before trial, Little sought a further two-month continuance. The court denied Little’s request because it was brought too close to trial but expressly allowed Little to renew her continuance request at trial.

On the trial date, Little again requested a two-month continuance, citing her doctor’s concern that she gets “fatigued” and that she not get “overexerted.” Little also told the court that the attorney she had retained could not proceed because his mother was in the hospital, and that discovery remained incomplete. Concluding Little had made the motion in bad faith, the court denied her request to delay the trial.

During the discussion on Little’s continuance request, Manuel told the court the case had been going on for five years, both as a small claims action and the current superior court case. At the court’s request, Manuel provided the court an unspecified number of documents relating to the previous small claims action. The court recessed to review the papers. Based on its review, the court determined the present case involved the same basic issues as the small claims action, and that anything additional in the superior court complaint should have been raised in the small claims case. Little informed the court she had dismissed her small claims case without predjudice. The court requested documentation reflecting this disposition. Little explained she did not know she would need proof of the prior dismissal for trial, and would have to go home to get the records. The court refused her request, stating “[t]his is it. . . . This is the day.” Little then declared: “Well, I’m not able to proceed to trial . . . today. I am just not feeling that well.” After noting its understanding that Little had continued the small claims action several times based on illness, the trial court dismissed the action.

Little filed a new trial motion, which included proof she had dismissed her small claims case without prejudice. The trial court denied her motion without a hearing, stating simply that it “finds no good cause to vacate its order . . . dismissing this case.” Little now appeals.

II

Discussion

The Trial Court Erred in Dismissing Little’s Case on Res Judicata Grounds

Little contends the trial court erred in dismissing her case under the doctrine of res judicata. We agree.

The Estudillos never asserted a res judicata defense in either their demurrers or answer. The only mention the Estudillos made of res judicata before trial appears in a footnote in their memorandum of points and authorities supporting their demurrers, which states: “More than likely, many of her causes of action are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.” The res judicata issue first arose at trial when Little requested a continuance. As Little informed the court, she received no notice res judicata would be raised at trial, and asked for a brief recess to obtain documents showing the issue lacked merit. The court refused.

The documents the court relied upon in sustaining the res judicata defense were never introduced into evidence nor were they even apparently shown to Little. The court returned the unspecified documents, which it referred to as the “small claims stuff,” to the Estudillos at the close of the hearing. As a result, these documents do not appear in the record.

We have previously observed: “Due process requires an order with . . . significant impact on the viability of a case not be made without a full opportunity to brief the issues and present evidence. “ (Carabini v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 239, 244.) Here, the trial court determined res judicata barred Little’s claims without affording her any opportunity to brief the issue, present evidence, or to even review the documents the Estudillos provided. The trial court’s refusal to grant a recess so Little could obtain the documents, and the court’s subsequent denial of Little’s motion to continue, which would have given Little an opportunity to rebut the belated res judicata claim, violated Little’s right to due process.

The Estudillos contend that even if the trial court’s res judicata ruling was erroneous, the action was properly dismissed because Little represented she was unable to proceed to trial that day, and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a trial continuance. We disagree.

Little’s representation she was not able to proceed followed the trial court’s refusal to allow Little time to collect the appropriate documents. Little’s concession merely acknowledged she could not prevail on the res judicata issue because the court denied her an opportunity to obtain rebuttal evidence to meet a defense raised for the first time at the outset of trial. Little had a due process right to notice of the defense claim and an opportunity to obtain evidence to meet that claim. Because the trial court violated Little’s constitutional right to due process, the trial court’s dismissal of her action cannot stand.

III

Disposition

The judgment is reversed.

ARONSON, J.

WE CONCUR:

SILLS, P. J.

FYBEL, J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.