Opinion
A164019
07-27-2023
TAK LUN NG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LARRAZOLO ALEJANDRO, Defendant and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG18925788)
Fineman, J.[*]
Plaintiff Tak Lun Ng appeals an order dismissing with prejudice his complaint against defendant Larrazolo Alejandro for damages arising out of a car accident. Ng appeared in propria persona in the trial court and continues to represent himself on appeal. Alejandro has not filed a brief in this court. We find no error in the trial court's determination that Ng's complaint was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and therefore, we shall affirm the trial court's order.
Background
On October 23, 2018, Ng filed a complaint in the superior court against Alejandro alleging causes of action for personal injury and property damage arising out of car accident that occurred on December 9, 2017. Amended complaints were filed on December 6, 2018 and April 30, 2019. Alejandro did not file a responsive pleading. The sole document filed by Alejandro was a notice of related case that indicated that Ng had filed an action against him in small claims court and that Alejandro had prevailed in that action.
Between May 2019 and August 2021, the court issued several case management orders directing Ng to effectuate service of the complaints and, once service was accomplished, take Alejandro's default. The court did not hold any hearings but advised Ng by written order to consult the court's selfhelp center if he had any questions regarding how to obtain a default judgment. Ng filed numerous documents with the court, but the record does not contain a proper request for entry of Alejandro's default and the court never entered default.
On August 29, 2021, the court issued an order to show cause indicating that the case may be dismissed based on Ng's failure to diligently prosecute and set a deadline for Ng to respond of October 25, 2021, which was more than three years after the action was commenced. The order explains, "Despite admonition from this court to do so, plaintiff has failed to timely file a Request for Entry of Default as to defendant. In addition, Defendant contends this auto accident claim was previously adjudicated in his favor in small claims court." The order directed Ng to file a "written objection to dismissal showing good cause why the case should not be dismissed including an explanation as to whether or not this is the same auto accident that was adjudicated in case no. RS18899043."
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420, subdivision (a)(2)(A), a court in its discretion on its own motion may dismiss an action if it is not brought to trial three years after the action was commenced.
On November 9, 2021, Ng submitted a document acknowledging that the car accident at issue in the present proceeding is the same car accident that was at issue in the small claims court proceeding. Ng also appeared to acknowledge that he lost in the small claims action. He suggests, however, that he lost because he was unable to respond to the court's "statement of fact[s]" due to the deterioration of his mental state and that "transfer" or "submission" of the case to the Superior Court was appropriate because his losses exceed the jurisdiction of the small claims court.
On November 10, 2021, the court issued an order dismissing Ng's amended complaint with prejudice on the ground that it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The court, based upon the records in the superior court action and two small claims actions brought by Ng, explained, "On March 29, 2018, plaintiffs Tak L. Ng and Xin Yu Wu filed small claims action RS18899043 against defendant Larrazalo Alejandro for bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on December 9, 2017. Five months later, the same plaintiffs filed small claims action RS18916911 against the same defendant for property damage which occurred on 12/9/17. On October 10, 2018, case number RS18899043 proceeded to trial in Dept. 514 of the Alameda County Superior Court, Hon. James Reilly presiding. Both plaintiffs appeared and testified. Defendant appeared and testified. After receiving all the evidence, the court found that defendant was not negligent in the incident that occurred on 12/9/17 and was not liable to the plaintiffs for any damages. Judgment was entered for the defendant. Having heard all the evidence as to causation and finding defendant not liable, the court also dismissed RS18916911 as already adjudicated. [¶] Thirteen days after the court's judgment in RS18899043, plaintiff Tak L. Ng filed the instant action against defendant Larrazalo Alejandro for bodily injury arising from the motor vehicle accident which occurred on December 9, 2017. On November 18, 2019, defendant filed a Notice of Related Cases drawing the court's attention to the previous adjudication of this claim on 10/10/18. On August 29, 2021, the court issued an OSC in re DISMISSAL requiring plaintiff to respond to the contention that this case was previously adjudicated by 10/25/21. On October 7, 2021, plaintiff filed a Declaration in which he concedes that the claims in this case are the same as those raised in RS18899043 and RS18916911. Plaintiff fails to mention in his declaration that there was a full adjudication of the claims and a finding against him. Rather, he seems to contend that the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the small claims actions because of the $10,000 maximum jurisdiction of small claims court. This is not supported by the court's records in the two underlying small claims actions, of which the court takes judicial notice. The issue of liability between the parties for the motor vehicle accident of December 9, 2017 was fully adjudicated on 10/10/18 and judgment was found for the defendant, Larrazalo Alejandro. Plaintiffs have no right of appeal from a small claims judgment and thus the holding of 10/10/18 is fully binding upon them." The court's order was served by the court on November 10, 2021. Ng timely filed a notice of appeal.
Discussion
" 'California courts have inherent power to ". . . control [their] proceedings."' [Citation.] 'From their creation by article VI, section 1 of the California Constitution, California courts received broad inherent power "not confined by or dependent on statute." [Citations.] This inherent power includes "fundamental inherent equity, supervisory, and administrative powers, as well as inherent power to control litigation." '" (Huang v. Hanks (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 179, 181-182.)
The court did not err in exercising its inherent powers to dismiss Ng's complaint based on the doctrine of res judicata. (See Arizona v. California (2000) 530 U.S. 392, 413 [" '[I]f a court is on notice that it has previously decided the issue presented, the court may dismiss the action sua sponte, even though the defense has not been raised. This result is fully consistent with the policies underlying res judicata: it is not based solely on the defendant's interest in avoiding the burdens of twice defending a suit, but is also based on the avoidance of unnecessary judicial waste.' "]; McKenna v. Elliott &Horne Co. (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 551, 554 [trial court's inherent power to dismiss an action supported dismissal of complaint where action was clearly barred by res judicata]; Weil &Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶ 7:370 ["Despite lack of statutory authority, courts may assert their inherent judicial power to dismiss cases in which no valid cause of action . . . is stated."].)
Ng did not object to the court's procedure and therefore has forfeited any procedural challenge on appeal. (K.C. Multimedia, Inc. v. Bank of America Technology &Operations, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 939, 948-951 [plaintiff forfeited its procedural challenges to the court's sua sponte dismissal of its claims before trial by failing to object to the court's procedure].)
Ng was provided sufficient notice of the court's motion to dismiss and an opportunity to be heard. The order to show cause issued on August 29, 2021, requested a written explanation regarding the small claims court proceeding and advised Ng that failure to comply may result in the permanent dismissal of his case. Ng responded.
The record supports the court's conclusion that the present action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata." 'The doctrine of res judicata precludes the relitigation of certain matters which have been resolved in a prior proceeding under certain circumstances. [Citation.] Its purpose is "to preserve the integrity of the judicial system, promote judicial economy, and protect litigants from harassment by vexatious litigation." [Citations.] [¶] . . . The prerequisite elements for applying the doctrine to either an entire cause of action or one or more issues are the same: (1) A claim or issue raised in the present action is identical to a claim or issue litigated in a prior proceeding; (2) the prior proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom the doctrine is being asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding.'" (Pitzen v. Superior Court (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1374, 1381.) It is well established that the doctrine of res judicata applies to small claims judgments. (Ibid.)
As the court noted, Ng does not dispute that the matter was resolved against him in the small claims court proceedings. It appears from his appellate brief that Ng believes the small claims proceedings were unfair insofar as he was not provided an interpreter and possibly because the testimony before the court was false. A plaintiff who elects to proceed in the small claims court, however, is finally bound by an adverse judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 116.710, subd. (a) ["The plaintiff in a small claims action shall have no right to appeal the judgment on the plaintiff's claim"].) "The policy precluding review of small claims judgments against plaintiffs is so strong that a small claims plaintiff cannot obtain appellate review even where he can demonstrate the small claims court clearly erred as a matter of law." (Pitzen v. Superior Ct., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 1380.)
Accordingly, we find no error in the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.
Disposition
The order dismissing the complaint is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Brown, P. J., Goldman, J.
[*] Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.