2017-00205876-CL-PA

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. vs. Erik Gontar

Nature of Proceeding: Hearing on Demurrer to Cross-Complaint

Filed By: Hallissy, John P.

The demurrer of Defendant and Cross-Defendant Jason Williams (Williams) is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Williams’ request for judicial notice of court documents is GRANTED.

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) commenced this subrogation action after its insured was involved in a multi-car collision. The defendants are WiIliams, Erik Gontar and Anatoliy Gontar (Anatoliy). Anatoliy sought and received leave of court to file a cross-complaint against Williams for apportionment of fault, declaratory relief and negligence. (See RJN, Exh. A.) Williams now demurs to

the declaratory relief and negligence causes of action on grounds the allegations fail to state a valid cause of action. He cites res judicata and collateral estoppel as grounds for the demurrer. Anatoliy opposes.

When the court granted Anatoliy leave to file the cross-complaint, it did so notwithstanding Williams’ res judicata arguments in opposition. (See 10/02/17 Order.) Williams noted then, as now, that Anatoliy unsuccessfully sued him in small claims court for damage to his vehicle. (RJN, Exh. B.) State Farm and its insured were not parties to the small claims action, but Anatoliy’s claim against Williams arose from the car accident at issue in this case. In granting Anatoliy leave to file the cross-complaint, the court observed that the small claims action addressed Williams’ liability for Anatoliy’s alleged damages, whereas Anatoliy’s cross-complaint in the current action involves Williams’ comparative fault for State Farm’s insured’s damages. It is unclear whether the court also considered that the cross-complaint contains a cause of action for negligence, which addresses Williams’ liability for Anatoliy’s damages–the same damages tendered in the small claims action.

Williams’ demurrer to Anatoliy’s third cause of action for negligence must be sustained based on res judicata. Judgments in small claims actions have res judicata effect, ( Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mel Rapton, Inc. (App. 3. Dist. 2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 901, 907), and it is clear that Anatoliy is attempting to litigate a property damage claim that already yielded a judgment in Williams’ favor. Consequently, Anatoliy has not stated a valid cause of action for negligence in his cross-complaint. Moreover, because Anatoliy cannot cure the third cause of action through amendment, leave to amend the third cause of action is denied.

Williams also demurs to Anatoliy’s second cause of action for declaratory relief. With that cause of action, Anatoliy seeks a declaration as to which vehicle (his or Williams’) had the right-of-way when the collision occurred. Williams argues this cause of action is likewise barred on ground of res judicata or collateral estoppel. The court need not address Williams’ argument because the second cause of action is defective for two different reasons: (1) it only seeks redress for past wrongs and (2) it duplicates the first cause of action for comparative fault. (See Mendoza v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (App. 3 Dist. 2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 802, 820.) Declaratory relief is only available prospectively, i.e., to determine rights and duties going forward. Moreover, declaratory relief is unwarranted where other causes of action will distill the parties’ rights and duties.

The demurrer to the second cause of action is sustained. Again, Anatoliy has failed to demonstrate he can cure the defects through amendment, and leave to amend is denied.

Disposition

The demurrers to the second and third causes of action in Anatoliy’s cross-complaint are sustained without leave to amend.

Williams shall file and serve his answer to the balance of Anatoliy’s cross-complaint no later than 2/02/18.