Preview
1 Michelle Marchetta Kenyon (SBN 127969) FILING FEE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO
E-mail: mkenyon@bwslaw.com
mkenyon@bwslaw.com GOVERNMENT CODE § § 6103
2 Kevin D. Siegel (SBN194787)
E-mail: ksiegel@bwslaw.com
ksiegel@bwslaw.com
3 Albert Tong (SBN 208439)
E-mail: atong@bwslaw.com
atong@bwslaw.com
4 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
6/21/2021
1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900
5 Oakland, CA 94612-3501
CA 94612-3501
Tel: 510.273.8780
Tel: 510.273.8780 Fax: Fax:510.839.9104
510.839.9104
6
Attorneys for Defendant
7 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
11
12 FRANCESCA FAMBROUGH, CHRIS Case No.
No. 17CIV05387
17CIV05387
TAVENNER, NINA PESCHCKE-
13 KOEDT, EMILIO DIAZ, DAN Assignedfor for All Purposes to the
SLANKER, DAWN SLANKER, Honorable Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2
Weiner, Dept.
14 BRENDA SMITH, THUMPER SMITH,
15 Plaintiffs, CITY
CITY OF OF REDWOOD
REDWOOD CITY’S CITY'S MOTION IN
LIMINE NO. 1 TO PRECLUDE SEVERAL
16 v. PLAINTIFFS FROM OFFERING ANY
EVIDENCE DUE TO RES JUDICATA
17 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY,
18 Defendant.
Date: August
Trial Date: August 2, 2021
19 ___________________________________ Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 2
20 ALISON MADDEN, WILLIAM Judge: Hon. Marie S. Weiner
MICHAEL FLEMING, EDWARD
21 STANCIL, JEDRICK HUMPHRIES, [Courtesy copies of Requests for Judicial Notice
ALBA LUCIA DIAZ, JONATHAN REID, filed on 11/01/19 and 04/01/21 delivered
22 TINA REID, AND JOHN CHAMBERS, herewith to Dept. 2]
23 Plaintiff-Intervenors.
24 v.
25 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY,
26 Defendant.
27
28
B URKE , WILLIAMS
BURKE,
BURKE, W ILLIAMS &
&
S ORENS EN , LLP
SORENSEN,
SORENSEN, LLP
LLP
OAK #4817-5356-2603 v4 -1-
A A
ATTORNEYS
ATTORNEYS LAW
T T O R N E Y S AT
T LAW
AT
OAKLA ND
OAKLAND
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY'S CITY'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 [RES JUDICATA]
CITY’S
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3 I.
I.
T. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 5
II.
II.
TT. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 5
4
III.
III.
TIT. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 6
5 A. Motion
Motion in in Limine Standards....................................................................................
Limine Standards
Standards 6
6 B. Petitioner-Plaintiffs’
Res Judicata Bars Petitioner-Plaintiffs' Claims ...................................................... 7
Petitioner-Plaintiffs' Claims
1. Res Judicata Bars aa Second
Judicata Bars Second Suit
Suit on the Same
on the Cause of
Same Cause of Action ................. 7
7
a. Res Judicata Standards .................................................................... 7
Res Judicata
8 b. The Second Element Ts Is Met Even if the Second Suit Is Ts
Based on a Different Theory, Seeks a Different Remedy,
9 and/or Concerns
Concerns an an Issue Not Decided in the First Suit ................. 8
Issue Not
10 c. Other Cases
Many Other Cases Demonstrate
Demonstrate the Reach of
the Reach the Second
of the Second
Element ......................................................................................... 11
11
11 2. Effort to
Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ Effort
Res Judicata Precludes Petitioner-Plaintiffs' to Pursue
Pursue
Claims in the Present Action Which
Present Action Which They
They Could
Could Have
Have Alleged
Alleged in
12 Action ......................................................................................... 12
the Prior Action
13 IV.
TV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 16
W. CONCLUSION
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B URKE , W
BURKE, &
ILLIAMS &
WILLIAMS -2 -
S ORENS EN , LLP
SORENSEN,
SORENSEN, LLP
LLP
A A
ATTORNEYS LAW
T T O R N E Y S AT
ATTORNEYST LAW
AT
OAKLA ND
OAKLAND
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY'S CITY'S MOTION IN
CITY’S IN LIMINE NO. 1 [RES JUDICATA]
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page(s)
3 State Cases
4
Alpha Mechanical, Heating & Air Air Conditioning, Inc.Inc. v. Travelers Casualty &
5 Surety Co. ofofAmerica
(2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1319 ........................................................................................... passim
passim
6
Bay Cities
Bay Cities Paving
Paving & & Grading, Inc.
Inc. v.
Grading, Inc.
Grading, Lawyers’
v. Lawyers'
v. Mutual Ins.
Lawyers' Mutual Ins. Co.
Co.
7 Cal.4th 854 .......................................................................................................9,
(1993) 5 Ca1.4th 9, 11, 14
8 Border Business Park v. San Diego
(2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1538 .................................................................................................8,
8, 9
9
10 Burdette v. Carrier Corp.
(2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1668 ...............................................................................................9,
9, 14
11
Federation of of Hillside and Canyon Associations v. City of of Los Angeles
12 (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1180 ...................................................................................8,
8, 11, 12, 14
13 Franceschi v. Franchise Tax Bd.
(2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 247 ...........................................................................................................9
9
14
Gates v. Superior Court
15
(1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 301.........................................................................................................99
16
Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co.
17 (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888 .......................................................................................................7,
28 Ca1.4th 7, 8, 12
18 PG&E v. Shasta Dam Area Public Utility Utility Dist.
(1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 752 .............................................................................................9,
9, 10, 15
19
Sabek, Inc. v. Engelhard Corp.
20
(1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 992 .....................................................................................................8,
8, 9
21
Sukut Construction v. Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Land Trust
22 (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 527.........................................................................................................12
12
23 Zevnik v. Superior Court
(2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 76 .........................................................................................8,
8, 9, 13, 15
24
State Statutes
25
California Relocation Assistance Law (CRAL)...................................................................... passim
passim
26
27 Evid. Code § 210 ...............................................................................................................................7
7
28 Evid. Code § 350 ...............................................................................................................................6
6
B URKE , WILLIAMS
BURKE,
BURKE, W ILLIAMS &
&
S ORENS EN , LLP
SORENSEN,
SORENSEN, LLP
LLP
OAK #4817-5356-2603 v4 -3-
A A
ATTORNEYS
ATTORNEYS LAW
T T O R N E Y S AT
T LAW
AT
OAKLA ND
OAKLAND
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY'S CITY'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 [RES JUDICATA]
CITY’S
1 Other Authorities
2 Rules of Court, rule 8.104 ...............................................................................................................12
12
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
B URKE , WILLIAMS
BURKE,
BURKE, W ILLIAMS &
&
S ORENS EN , LLP
SORENSEN,
SORENSEN, LLP
LLP
OAK #4817-5356-2603 v4 -4-
A A
ATTORNEYS
ATTORNEYS LAW
T T O R N E Y S AT
T LAW
AT
OAKLA ND
OAKLAND
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY'S CITY'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 [RES JUDICATA]
CITY’S
1 Defendant City of of Redwood
Redwood City City (the
(the "City")
“City”) submits this Motion in Limine No. 1 with
2 respect to six plaintiffs—Nina Peschcke-Koedt, Dan Slanker, Dawn Slanker, Alison Madden, Ed
3 Stancil, and John Chambers—who are barred by res judicata (claim preclusion) from pursuing
4 any cause of action against the City. Thus, these
Thus, these plaintiffs
plaintiffs could
could not present any relevant
5 evidence in the pending action.
6 I. INTRODUCTION
7 allege the
Plaintiffs allege the City's
City’s termination of residential use of Docktown without payment of
City's termination
8 compensation, except pursuant to the the Docktown
Docktown Plan,
Plan, has
has violated their rights.
violated their rights. Plaintiffs claim
9 (1) damages under the
damages under the California
California Relocation
Relocation Assistance
Assistance Law (“CRAL”), and
Law ("CRAL"), and (2)
(2) just
10 compensation (damages) for inverse condemnation.
11 But in a prior action for which judgment is final, six of the current plaintiffs had claimed
12 termination of residential use of Docktown without payment of requisite compensation violated
13 their rights. Res
Res judicata
judicata now bars these
now bars
bars these six
six plaintiffs'
plaintiffs’ attempts
plaintiffs' attempts to
attempts to pursue
to pursue any
pursue any relief
any relief in
in this
this second
second
14 suit regarding the alleged violation of their right not to be displaced from Docktown without
15 payment of compensation required by law. Res judicata
law. Res judicata does
does not require that the issues were
16 necessarily or actually decided in the prior prior action,
action, whereas
whereas collateral
collateral estoppel
estoppel would.
would. Instead, res
17 judicata is triggered if the claims were or could have been raised in the prior action, as is the
18 situation at bar.
19 Thus, as discussed below, res judicata precludes any effort by Nina Peschcke-Koedt, Dan
20 Slanker, Dawn Slanker, Alison Madden, Ed Stancil, and John Chambers to claim, in this second
21 action, that the City has not violated their rights by refusing to compensation to which they are
22 entitled in connection with the the City's
City’s termination of residential use at Docktown.
23 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
24 (“Pending Action")
Six of the plaintiffs in the pending action ("Pending Action”) were plaintiffs in another
25 action against
action against the
the City
City regarding
regarding the
the City's
City’s obligations
obligations to to pay
pay compensation in connection with
26 termination of residential use of Docktown, entitled Frambrough [sic] [sic]et
[sic] et al.
et al. v. Redwood City,
27 17CIV04680 ("Prior
Case No. 17CIV04680 (“Prior Action").
Action”). These
These six
six plaintiffs,
plaintiffs, Nina
Nina Peschcke-Koedt,
Peschcke-Koedt, Dan Slanker,
28 Dawn Slanker,
Dawn Slanker, Alison
Alison Madden,
Madden, Ed Ed Stancil, and John
Stancil, and Chambers ("Petitioner-Plaintiffs"),
John Chambers (“Petitioner-Plaintiffs”),
B URKE , WILLIAMS
BURKE,
BURKE, W ILLIAMS &
&
S ORENS EN , LLP
SORENSEN,
SORENSEN, LLP
LLP
OAK #4817-5356-2603 v4 -5-
A A
ATTORNEYS
ATTORNEYS LAW
T T O R N E Y S AT
T LAW
AT
OAKLA ND
OAKLAND
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY'S CITY'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 [RES JUDICATA]
CITY’S
1 commenced the Prior Action by filing a Petition for Writ of Mandamus on October 12, 2017.
2 Each Petitioner-Plaintiff, along with other plaintiffs, claimed the City wrongfully refused to pay
3 them compensation to which they are entitled in connection with termination of their residential
4 use at Docktown. (See (See Exh.
Exh. 55 to
to the City’sRequest
the City's
City's Request for
for Judicial
Judicial Notice
Notice filed
filed herein on Nov. 1,
5 (“11/01/19 RJN");
2019 ("11/01/19 RJN”); see also Exh. B, pp. 1 and 5-6 to to the
the City's
City’s Request
Request for
for Judicial
Judicial Notice
Notice
6 filed herein
filed herein on
on April
April 14,
14, 2021
2021 ("04/01/21
(“04/01/21 RJN”).)
RJN").)11
7 The court trial/writ hearing in in the
the Prior
Prior Action
Action was
was held
held on
on April
April 12,
12, 2019.
2019. Petitioner-
8 Plaintiffs expressly
Plaintiffs expressly asserted
asserted that
that "the
“the relief
"the relief they seek is (1) to remain residing at Docktown, or
9 (2) obtain CRAL benefits (or inverse condemnation damages)," damages),” as the Court recounted in its
10 Order denying Petitioner-Plaintiffs' claims. (Exh.
Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ claims. (Exh. 6,
6, p.
p. 44 to
to 11/01/19
11/01/19 RJN,
RJN, emphasis in original.)
11 On July 2, 2019, the Court ruled against Petitioner-Plaintiffs. (Id. at p. 2.)
12 The Court stated that it was not adjudicating whether any Docktown resident could
13 establish entitlement to CRAL benefits. However, under
benefits. However, under res judicata, once final judgment was
14 entered that statement is of no consequence as to whether Petitioner-Plaintiffs' decision to
Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ decision
Petitioner-Plaintiffs' to split
split
15 their claims between two lawsuits precludes their claims in in the
the Pending
Pending Action.
Action. As discussed
16 below, it was Petitioner-Plaintiffs' obligation to
Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ obligation
Petitioner-Plaintiffs' obligation to properly
properly advance
properly advance andand prove,
prove, in the Prior Action,
17 each and every claim they asserted or could have asserted asserted regarding the
regarding the
regarding City’s
the City's liability for
City's liability for
18 terminating residential use of Docktown.
19 On August 1, 2019, the Court entered entered Judgment
Judgment for for the
the City
City in
in the
the Prior Action. (Exh. 6
PriorAction.
20 to 11/01/19 RJN.) The The Judgment
Judgment waswas not
not appealed, and is thus final.
21 III.
III. DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
22 A. Motion in Limine Standards.
23 “[N]o evidence
"[N]o evidence isis admissible
admissible except
admissible except relevant
exceptrelevant evidence.”
relevantevidence." (Evid.
(Evid. Code
evidence." (Evid. 350.)
Code§§350.) “‘Relevant
350.) "'Relevant
"'Relevant
24 evidence’ means
evidence'
evidence' means evidence,
means evidence, including
evidence, including evidence
including evidence relevant
relevant toto the
the credibility
credibility of
of aa witness
witness oror hearsay
hearsay
25 declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of
26
1
1 The City
City renews its request for judicial notice of each of the documents attached to the
27 11/01/19 and 04/01/21 RJNs, pursuant to each of the authorities cited therein.
28 The City will provide the Court with courtesy copies of these RJNs.
B URKE , WILLIAMS
BURKE,
BURKE, W ILLIAMS &
&
S ORENS EN , LLP
SORENSEN,
SORENSEN, LLP
LLP
OAK #4817-5356-2603 v4 -6-
A A
ATTORNEYS
ATTORNEYS LAW
T T O R N E Y S AT
T LAW
AT
OAKLA ND
OAKLAND
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY'S CITY'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 [RES JUDICATA]
CITY’S
1 consequence to the determination
determination of of the action.”
the action." (Evid. Code
action." (Evid. Code § § 210.)
2 A court properly grants a motion in limine to preclude submission of any and all evidence
3 if the cause of action or affirmative defense is barred by res judicata. (Alpha Mechanical,
4 Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of of America (2005) 133
5 Cal.App.4th 1319, 1323, 1331-32.)
6 B. Res Judicata Bars Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ Claims.
Petitioner-Plaintiffs' Claims.
7 As discussed
As discussed below,
below, itit isthe plaintiff’s
the plaintiffs
is the duty
plaintiffs duty to present
duty to
to present each
present each and
each and every
and every claim in
every claim in aa single
single
8 lawsuit regarding an alleged violation of of aa primary
primary right. By operation of law, once judgment in
right. By
9 the first suit is final, the plaintiff cannot proceed in a second suit with respect to any claim that
10 could have been pursued in the first suit, irrespective of whether the court acknowledged that the
11 claim would not be decided in the first suit. Indeed, unlike
Indeed, unlike the
the rules
rules for collateral estoppel (issue
12 preclusion), whether an issue was necessarily or actually decided is irrelevant.
13 As a result of Petitioner-Plaintiffs' claims being barred by res judicata, they could not
Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ claims
claims
14 present any admissible evidence as to either the first or second causes of action.
15 1. Res Judicata Bars a Second Suit on the Same Cause of Action.
16 a. Res Judicata Standards.
17 “Res judicata,
"Res
"Res judicata, or
or claim
claim preclusion,
preclusion, prevents
prevents re-litigation
re-litigation of the same cause of action in a
18 second suit
second suit between
between thethe same
same parties
parties or
or parties
parties in
in privity
privity with
with them."
them.” (Mycogen Corp. v.
(Mycogen
19 Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Ca1.4th 896.)22 To
Cal.4th 888, 896.) Tothe
theextent
extent the
the plaintiff prevailed in the first
plaintiff prevailed
20 action, "the
action, “the cause
cause is
is merged
merged into the judgment
into the judgment andand may
may not be asserted
not be asserted in
in aa subsequent
subsequent lawsuit;”
lawsuit;"
21 to the
to the extent
extent the
the defendant
defendant prevailed
prevailed in
in the
the first action, the
first action, the judgment
Preview
1 Michelle Marchetta Kenyon (SBN 127969) FILING FEE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO E-mail: mkenyon@bwslaw.com mkenyon@bwslaw.com GOVERNMENT CODE § § 6103 2 Kevin D. Siegel (SBN194787) E-mail: ksiegel@bwslaw.com ksiegel@bwslaw.com 3 Albert Tong (SBN 208439) E-mail: atong@bwslaw.com atong@bwslaw.com 4 BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 6/21/2021 1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900 5 Oakland, CA 94612-3501 CA 94612-3501 Tel: 510.273.8780 Tel: 510.273.8780 Fax: Fax:510.839.9104 510.839.9104 6 Attorneys for Defendant 7 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 11 12 FRANCESCA FAMBROUGH, CHRIS Case No. No. 17CIV05387 17CIV05387 TAVENNER, NINA PESCHCKE- 13 KOEDT, EMILIO DIAZ, DAN Assignedfor for All Purposes to the SLANKER, DAWN SLANKER, Honorable Marie S. Weiner, Dept. 2 Weiner, Dept. 14 BRENDA SMITH, THUMPER SMITH, 15 Plaintiffs, CITY CITY OF OF REDWOOD REDWOOD CITY’S CITY'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO PRECLUDE SEVERAL 16 v. PLAINTIFFS FROM OFFERING ANY EVIDENCE DUE TO RES JUDICATA 17 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, 18 Defendant. Date: August Trial Date: August 2, 2021 19 ___________________________________ Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 2 20 ALISON MADDEN, WILLIAM Judge: Hon. Marie S. Weiner MICHAEL FLEMING, EDWARD 21 STANCIL, JEDRICK HUMPHRIES, [Courtesy copies of Requests for Judicial Notice ALBA LUCIA DIAZ, JONATHAN REID, filed on 11/01/19 and 04/01/21 delivered 22 TINA REID, AND JOHN CHAMBERS, herewith to Dept. 2] 23 Plaintiff-Intervenors. 24 v. 25 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, 26 Defendant. 27 28 B URKE , WILLIAMS BURKE, BURKE, W ILLIAMS & & S ORENS EN , LLP SORENSEN, SORENSEN, LLP LLP OAK #4817-5356-2603 v4 -1- A A ATTORNEYS ATTORNEYS LAW T T O R N E Y S AT T LAW AT OAKLA ND OAKLAND CITY OF REDWOOD CITY'S CITY'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 [RES JUDICATA] CITY’S 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 I. I. T. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 5 II. II. TT. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 5 4 III. III. TIT. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 6 5 A. Motion Motion in in Limine Standards.................................................................................... Limine Standards Standards 6 6 B. Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ Res Judicata Bars Petitioner-Plaintiffs' Claims ...................................................... 7 Petitioner-Plaintiffs' Claims 1. Res Judicata Bars aa Second Judicata Bars Second Suit Suit on the Same on the Cause of Same Cause of Action ................. 7 7 a. Res Judicata Standards .................................................................... 7 Res Judicata 8 b. The Second Element Ts Is Met Even if the Second Suit Is Ts Based on a Different Theory, Seeks a Different Remedy, 9 and/or Concerns Concerns an an Issue Not Decided in the First Suit ................. 8 Issue Not 10 c. Other Cases Many Other Cases Demonstrate Demonstrate the Reach of the Reach the Second of the Second Element ......................................................................................... 11 11 11 2. Effort to Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ Effort Res Judicata Precludes Petitioner-Plaintiffs' to Pursue Pursue Claims in the Present Action Which Present Action Which They They Could Could Have Have Alleged Alleged in 12 Action ......................................................................................... 12 the Prior Action 13 IV. TV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 16 W. CONCLUSION 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B URKE , W BURKE, & ILLIAMS & WILLIAMS -2 - S ORENS EN , LLP SORENSEN, SORENSEN, LLP LLP A A ATTORNEYS LAW T T O R N E Y S AT ATTORNEYST LAW AT OAKLA ND OAKLAND CITY OF REDWOOD CITY'S CITY'S MOTION IN CITY’S IN LIMINE NO. 1 [RES JUDICATA] 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 State Cases 4 Alpha Mechanical, Heating & Air Air Conditioning, Inc.Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & 5 Surety Co. ofofAmerica (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1319 ........................................................................................... passim passim 6 Bay Cities Bay Cities Paving Paving & & Grading, Inc. Inc. v. Grading, Inc. Grading, Lawyers’ v. Lawyers' v. Mutual Ins. Lawyers' Mutual Ins. Co. Co. 7 Cal.4th 854 .......................................................................................................9, (1993) 5 Ca1.4th 9, 11, 14 8 Border Business Park v. San Diego (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1538 .................................................................................................8, 8, 9 9 10 Burdette v. Carrier Corp. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1668 ...............................................................................................9, 9, 14 11 Federation of of Hillside and Canyon Associations v. City of of Los Angeles 12 (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1180 ...................................................................................8, 8, 11, 12, 14 13 Franceschi v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 247 ...........................................................................................................9 9 14 Gates v. Superior Court 15 (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 301.........................................................................................................99 16 Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. 17 (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888 .......................................................................................................7, 28 Ca1.4th 7, 8, 12 18 PG&E v. Shasta Dam Area Public Utility Utility Dist. (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 752 .............................................................................................9, 9, 10, 15 19 Sabek, Inc. v. Engelhard Corp. 20 (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 992 .....................................................................................................8, 8, 9 21 Sukut Construction v. Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Land Trust 22 (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 527.........................................................................................................12 12 23 Zevnik v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 76 .........................................................................................8, 8, 9, 13, 15 24 State Statutes 25 California Relocation Assistance Law (CRAL)...................................................................... passim passim 26 27 Evid. Code § 210 ...............................................................................................................................7 7 28 Evid. Code § 350 ...............................................................................................................................6 6 B URKE , WILLIAMS BURKE, BURKE, W ILLIAMS & & S ORENS EN , LLP SORENSEN, SORENSEN, LLP LLP OAK #4817-5356-2603 v4 -3- A A ATTORNEYS ATTORNEYS LAW T T O R N E Y S AT T LAW AT OAKLA ND OAKLAND CITY OF REDWOOD CITY'S CITY'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 [RES JUDICATA] CITY’S 1 Other Authorities 2 Rules of Court, rule 8.104 ...............................................................................................................12 12 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 B URKE , WILLIAMS BURKE, BURKE, W ILLIAMS & & S ORENS EN , LLP SORENSEN, SORENSEN, LLP LLP OAK #4817-5356-2603 v4 -4- A A ATTORNEYS ATTORNEYS LAW T T O R N E Y S AT T LAW AT OAKLA ND OAKLAND CITY OF REDWOOD CITY'S CITY'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 [RES JUDICATA] CITY’S 1 Defendant City of of Redwood Redwood City City (the (the "City") “City”) submits this Motion in Limine No. 1 with 2 respect to six plaintiffs—Nina Peschcke-Koedt, Dan Slanker, Dawn Slanker, Alison Madden, Ed 3 Stancil, and John Chambers—who are barred by res judicata (claim preclusion) from pursuing 4 any cause of action against the City. Thus, these Thus, these plaintiffs plaintiffs could could not present any relevant 5 evidence in the pending action. 6 I. INTRODUCTION 7 allege the Plaintiffs allege the City's City’s termination of residential use of Docktown without payment of City's termination 8 compensation, except pursuant to the the Docktown Docktown Plan, Plan, has has violated their rights. violated their rights. Plaintiffs claim 9 (1) damages under the damages under the California California Relocation Relocation Assistance Assistance Law (“CRAL”), and Law ("CRAL"), and (2) (2) just 10 compensation (damages) for inverse condemnation. 11 But in a prior action for which judgment is final, six of the current plaintiffs had claimed 12 termination of residential use of Docktown without payment of requisite compensation violated 13 their rights. Res Res judicata judicata now bars these now bars bars these six six plaintiffs' plaintiffs’ attempts plaintiffs' attempts to attempts to pursue to pursue any pursue any relief any relief in in this this second second 14 suit regarding the alleged violation of their right not to be displaced from Docktown without 15 payment of compensation required by law. Res judicata law. Res judicata does does not require that the issues were 16 necessarily or actually decided in the prior prior action, action, whereas whereas collateral collateral estoppel estoppel would. would. Instead, res 17 judicata is triggered if the claims were or could have been raised in the prior action, as is the 18 situation at bar. 19 Thus, as discussed below, res judicata precludes any effort by Nina Peschcke-Koedt, Dan 20 Slanker, Dawn Slanker, Alison Madden, Ed Stancil, and John Chambers to claim, in this second 21 action, that the City has not violated their rights by refusing to compensation to which they are 22 entitled in connection with the the City's City’s termination of residential use at Docktown. 23 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 24 (“Pending Action") Six of the plaintiffs in the pending action ("Pending Action”) were plaintiffs in another 25 action against action against the the City City regarding regarding the the City's City’s obligations obligations to to pay pay compensation in connection with 26 termination of residential use of Docktown, entitled Frambrough [sic] [sic]et [sic] et al. et al. v. Redwood City, 27 17CIV04680 ("Prior Case No. 17CIV04680 (“Prior Action"). Action”). These These six six plaintiffs, plaintiffs, Nina Nina Peschcke-Koedt, Peschcke-Koedt, Dan Slanker, 28 Dawn Slanker, Dawn Slanker, Alison Alison Madden, Madden, Ed Ed Stancil, and John Stancil, and Chambers ("Petitioner-Plaintiffs"), John Chambers (“Petitioner-Plaintiffs”), B URKE , WILLIAMS BURKE, BURKE, W ILLIAMS & & S ORENS EN , LLP SORENSEN, SORENSEN, LLP LLP OAK #4817-5356-2603 v4 -5- A A ATTORNEYS ATTORNEYS LAW T T O R N E Y S AT T LAW AT OAKLA ND OAKLAND CITY OF REDWOOD CITY'S CITY'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 [RES JUDICATA] CITY’S 1 commenced the Prior Action by filing a Petition for Writ of Mandamus on October 12, 2017. 2 Each Petitioner-Plaintiff, along with other plaintiffs, claimed the City wrongfully refused to pay 3 them compensation to which they are entitled in connection with termination of their residential 4 use at Docktown. (See (See Exh. Exh. 55 to to the City’sRequest the City's City's Request for for Judicial Judicial Notice Notice filed filed herein on Nov. 1, 5 (“11/01/19 RJN"); 2019 ("11/01/19 RJN”); see also Exh. B, pp. 1 and 5-6 to to the the City's City’s Request Request for for Judicial Judicial Notice Notice 6 filed herein filed herein on on April April 14, 14, 2021 2021 ("04/01/21 (“04/01/21 RJN”).) RJN").)11 7 The court trial/writ hearing in in the the Prior Prior Action Action was was held held on on April April 12, 12, 2019. 2019. Petitioner- 8 Plaintiffs expressly Plaintiffs expressly asserted asserted that that "the “the relief "the relief they seek is (1) to remain residing at Docktown, or 9 (2) obtain CRAL benefits (or inverse condemnation damages)," damages),” as the Court recounted in its 10 Order denying Petitioner-Plaintiffs' claims. (Exh. Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ claims. (Exh. 6, 6, p. p. 44 to to 11/01/19 11/01/19 RJN, RJN, emphasis in original.) 11 On July 2, 2019, the Court ruled against Petitioner-Plaintiffs. (Id. at p. 2.) 12 The Court stated that it was not adjudicating whether any Docktown resident could 13 establish entitlement to CRAL benefits. However, under benefits. However, under res judicata, once final judgment was 14 entered that statement is of no consequence as to whether Petitioner-Plaintiffs' decision to Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ decision Petitioner-Plaintiffs' to split split 15 their claims between two lawsuits precludes their claims in in the the Pending Pending Action. Action. As discussed 16 below, it was Petitioner-Plaintiffs' obligation to Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ obligation Petitioner-Plaintiffs' obligation to properly properly advance properly advance andand prove, prove, in the Prior Action, 17 each and every claim they asserted or could have asserted asserted regarding the regarding the regarding City’s the City's liability for City's liability for 18 terminating residential use of Docktown. 19 On August 1, 2019, the Court entered entered Judgment Judgment for for the the City City in in the the Prior Action. (Exh. 6 PriorAction. 20 to 11/01/19 RJN.) The The Judgment Judgment waswas not not appealed, and is thus final. 21 III. III. DISCUSSION DISCUSSION 22 A. Motion in Limine Standards. 23 “[N]o evidence "[N]o evidence isis admissible admissible except admissible except relevant exceptrelevant evidence.” relevantevidence." (Evid. (Evid. Code evidence." (Evid. 350.) Code§§350.) “‘Relevant 350.) "'Relevant "'Relevant 24 evidence’ means evidence' evidence' means evidence, means evidence, including evidence, including evidence including evidence relevant relevant toto the the credibility credibility of of aa witness witness oror hearsay hearsay 25 declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of 26 1 1 The City City renews its request for judicial notice of each of the documents attached to the 27 11/01/19 and 04/01/21 RJNs, pursuant to each of the authorities cited therein. 28 The City will provide the Court with courtesy copies of these RJNs. B URKE , WILLIAMS BURKE, BURKE, W ILLIAMS & & S ORENS EN , LLP SORENSEN, SORENSEN, LLP LLP OAK #4817-5356-2603 v4 -6- A A ATTORNEYS ATTORNEYS LAW T T O R N E Y S AT T LAW AT OAKLA ND OAKLAND CITY OF REDWOOD CITY'S CITY'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 [RES JUDICATA] CITY’S 1 consequence to the determination determination of of the action.” the action." (Evid. Code action." (Evid. Code § § 210.) 2 A court properly grants a motion in limine to preclude submission of any and all evidence 3 if the cause of action or affirmative defense is barred by res judicata. (Alpha Mechanical, 4 Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of of America (2005) 133 5 Cal.App.4th 1319, 1323, 1331-32.) 6 B. Res Judicata Bars Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ Claims. Petitioner-Plaintiffs' Claims. 7 As discussed As discussed below, below, itit isthe plaintiff’s the plaintiffs is the duty plaintiffs duty to present duty to to present each present each and each and every and every claim in every claim in aa single single 8 lawsuit regarding an alleged violation of of aa primary primary right. By operation of law, once judgment in right. By 9 the first suit is final, the plaintiff cannot proceed in a second suit with respect to any claim that 10 could have been pursued in the first suit, irrespective of whether the court acknowledged that the 11 claim would not be decided in the first suit. Indeed, unlike Indeed, unlike the the rules rules for collateral estoppel (issue 12 preclusion), whether an issue was necessarily or actually decided is irrelevant. 13 As a result of Petitioner-Plaintiffs' claims being barred by res judicata, they could not Petitioner-Plaintiffs’ claims claims 14 present any admissible evidence as to either the first or second causes of action. 15 1. Res Judicata Bars a Second Suit on the Same Cause of Action. 16 a. Res Judicata Standards. 17 “Res judicata, "Res "Res judicata, or or claim claim preclusion, preclusion, prevents prevents re-litigation re-litigation of the same cause of action in a 18 second suit second suit between between thethe same same parties parties or or parties parties in in privity privity with with them." them.” (Mycogen Corp. v. (Mycogen 19 Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Ca1.4th 896.)22 To Cal.4th 888, 896.) Tothe theextent extent the the plaintiff prevailed in the first plaintiff prevailed 20 action, "the action, “the cause cause is is merged merged into the judgment into the judgment andand may may not be asserted not be asserted in in aa subsequent subsequent lawsuit;” lawsuit;" 21 to the to the extent extent the the defendant defendant prevailed prevailed in in the the first action, the first action, the judgment