 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Newman v. VRL International5/16/2005
BR>
At the outset, we conclude that the trial court was wrong in relying upon our prior opinion as a basis for granting the motion to quash in this case. Whether the court's terse language was meant to refer to the doctrines of law of the case or res judicata, or each of them, neither apply here.
"If a case is first tried, and the judgment rendered is reversed on appeal, it will ordinarily be tried again . . . . [Citation.] And after retrial . . . , another appeal may be taken. The doctrine of `law of the case' deals with the effect of the first appellate decision on the subsequent retrial or appeal: The decision of an appellate court, stating a rule of law necessary to the decision of the case, conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any subsequent retrial or appeal in the same case. [ ] . . . [ ] . . . The doctrine applies only to a decision of an appellate court in the same case. Final decisions or rulings of a trial court in a separate case, or in various independent stages of a proceeding, are governed by the distinct principle of res judicata. [Citations.]" (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, ยงยง 895 & 896, pp. 928-930, original italics.) Because this is a separate and distinct case from Cuenllas, the doctrine of "law of the case" does not apply.
In general, `" he doctrine of res judicata precludes parties or their privies from relitigating an issue that has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. [Citation.] "Any issue necessarily decided in such litigation is conclusively determined as to the parties or their privies if it is involved in a subsequent lawsuit on a different cause of action." [Citation.]'" (Nathanson v. Hecker (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1162, quoting Levy v. Cohen (1977) 19 Cal.3d 165, 171.)
Res judicata has a "dual aspect." `"In its primary aspect the doctrine operates as a bar to the maintenance of a second suit between the same parties on the same cause of action. Its secondary aspect comes into play in situations involving a suit, not necessarily between the same parties, based upon a different cause of action. There the prior judgment is not a complete bar but it operates against the party against whom it was obtained as an estoppel or conclusive adjudication as to those issues in the second action which were actually litigated and determined in the first action. [Citation.]"' (Risam v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 412, 420, quoting Knickerbocker v. City of Stockton (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 235, 242, italics added.)
"`"Traditionally, collateral estoppel has been found to bar relitigation of an issue decided at a previous proceeding `if (1) the issue necessarily decided at the previous [proceeding] is identical to the one which is sought to be relitigated; (2) the previous [proceeding] resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the prior proceeding.'" [Citations.]'" (Risam v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 420, italics added.)
Before we proceed with our analysis, we note the distinctions between the concepts of general and specific jurisdiction and how they were treated in Cuenllas.
"Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. A nonresident defendant may be subject to the general jurisdiction of the forum if his or her contacts in the forum state are `substantial . . . continuous and systematic.' [Citations.] In such a case, `it is not necessary that the specific cause of action alleged be connected with the defendant's business relationship to the forum.' [Citations.]
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|