The demurrer by defendants Thomas Mahony and Sonya Mahony (the Mahonys) to first amended complaint is OVERRULED in its entirety.

The reporter’s transcript from the hearing on Coral Farms, LP, Susan Mikos, and Paul Mikos’ (collectively, plaintiffs) motion for entry of judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 (664.6 motion) heard in the underlying action on February 9, 2017, when considered in conjunction with the parties’ briefing on the matter, and the court’s ruling reflected in its minute order of February 9, 2017, shows the court denied the 664.6 motion because it did not find Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 or the terms of the settlement agreement allowed it to grant the relief requested—i.e., an order requiring the Mahonys to implement the “Norris Plan” within 90 days, without regard to the other portions of the settlement agreement – and that it did so without finally adjudicating whether the Mahonys were in breach of the settlement agreement.

Thus, res judicata and collateral estoppel do not bar plaintiffs’ first or second cause of action for breach of settlement agreement and false promise, since a final ruling on the merits is a necessary element to both claim and issue preclusion. (Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Countrywide Financial Corp. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1520, 1527 [elements of res judicata/claim preclusion]; Gottlieb v. Kest (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 110, 148 [elements of collateral estoppel/issue preclusion].)

Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts in support of their second cause of action for false promise at paragraphs 4-17, and 28-36.

All requests for judicial notice are GRANTED as to the existence and legal effect of the records filed in the underlying action, which includes, inter alia, exhibits A-C of the Mahonys’ request for judicial notice, and exhibits 2-4 of plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (c), (d); see also Kilroy v. State(2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-147 [“while courts are free to take judicial notice of the existence of each document in a court file, including the truth of results reached, they may not take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements in decisions and court files”].)

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of the reporter’s transcript from the underlying action on February 9, 2017, is DENIED as unnecessary. An identical copy of this reporter’s transcript is attached as exhibit 1 to the first amended complaint.

Moving parties to give notice.

image_pdfimage_print