17-CLJ-04917 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO vs. DARLENE L. STAHL

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO JOHN C. BEIERS

DARLENE L. STAHL

Demurrer to cross complaint

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Demurrer brought by Cross-Defendant County of San Mateo (County) to the Cross-Complaint of Cross-Complainant Darlene Stahl (Stahl) is sustained. The County’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted. Cross-Complainant Stahl shall have 20 days to file a First Amended Cross-Complaint.

Request for Judicial Notice. The County requests judicial notice of several court filings in the instant case and in the prior case, County of San Mateo v. Stahl, et al. (CLJ533046). Pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452 and 453, the request should be granted. In addition, the Court, on its own motion, takes judicial notice of the entire record and files in the prior case, County of San Mateo v. Stahl, et al. (CLJ533046), pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452 and 453.

Synopsis. This is a case concerning unpaid medical bills. A prior case was filed between the parties, County of San Mateo v. Stahl, et al. (CLJ533046), but, after a Notice of Settlement was filed, that case was dismissed pursuant to the requirements of CRC 3.1385. After efforts to set aside that dismissal were unavailing, the County filed the instant case, requesting similar relief as in the prior case. Defendant Stahl filed a cross-complaint, but failed to file an answer and is in default as to the allegations of the complaint. The County now demurs to the allegations in Stahl’s cross-complaint on grounds that the cross-complaint is uncertain (C.C.P. § 430.10(f)) and on grounds that it fails to state a claim (C.C.P. § 430.10(e)). The demurrer is unopposed.

Merits of Demurrer—Indemnity.

In general, indemnity refers to ‘the obligation resting on one party to make good a loss or damage another party has incurred.’ [Citation.] Historically, the obligation of indemnity took three forms: (1) indemnity expressly provided for by contract (express indemnity); (2) indemnity implied from a contract not specifically mentioning indemnity (implied contractual indemnity); and (3) indemnity arising from the equities of particular circumstances (traditional equitable indemnity).[footnote] [Citations.]

Although the foregoing categories of indemnity were once regarded as distinct, we now recognize there are only two basic types of indemnity: express indemnity and equitable indemnity. [Citation.]…

Prince v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1151, 1157. “Express indemnity refers to an obligation that arises ‘ “by virtue of express contractual language establishing a duty in one party to save another harmless upon the occurrence of specified circumstances.”’ [Citation.]” Id. at 1158.

Unlike express indemnity, traditional equitable indemnity requires no contractual relationship between an indemnitor and an indemnitee. Such indemnity ‘is premised on a joint legal obligation to another for damages,’ but it ‘does not invariably follow fault.’ [Citation.]

Id. at 1158. While there is vague reference to contracts and insurance in the allegations of the cross-complaint at issue, the allegations are too uncertain to allege a viable cause of action for express indemnity. Likewise, the allegations here are fatally uncertain because they do not contain facts that discuss how the alleged legal obligation to indemnify arose. As such, the County’s demurrer is sustained on grounds of uncertainty. C.C.P. § 430.10(f).

Merits of Demurrer—Declaratory Relief. “The purpose of declaratory relief is ‘to set controversies at rest before they lead to repudiation of obligations, invasion of rights or commission of wrongs.’ [Citation.] It ‘is to be used in the interests of preventive justice, to declare rights rather than execute them.’ [Citation.]” Environmental Defense Project of Sierra County v. County of Sierra (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 877, 884. “The ‘actual controversy’ language in Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 encompasses a probable future controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the parties. [Citation.]” Id. at 885. The claim presented in the cross-complaint does not concern a future controversy. It concerns a past medical bill and possibly insurance issues related thereto. As such, it is not a claim for which declaratory relief is necessary and the County’s demurrer is sustained on grounds of failure to state a claim. C.C.P. § 430.10(e).

Merits of Demurrer—Res Judicata. Res judicata is not a cause of action—it is a doctrine designed to bar successive litigation over the same claims or issues. Moreover, to be applicable it requires a that the prior case have been finally adjudicated on the merits. See DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824-825. Here, the prior litigation was dismissed pursuant to a procedural rule regarding dismissal after a Notice of Settlement is received—regardless of whether the parties formally reduced that settlement to a writing. CRC 3.1385. As dismissal on procedural grounds does not constitute final adjudication on the merits, and as res judicata is not a cause of action, the doctrine does not apply here and, in any event, cannot operate as a claim in a cross-complaint.