umbrella term encompassing both claim in California

2025(See Samara, supra, 5 Cal.5th at pp. 326–327.) As mentioned ante, claim preclusion requires (inter alia) “ ‘a second suit’ ” involving “ ‘the same cause of action . . . after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit.’ ” (Samara, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 326 .) “A judgment is on the merits . . . ‘if the substance of the claim is tried and determined . . . .’ (7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Judgment, § 313, p. 864.)” (Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 77 .) Similarly, issue preclusion requires “ ‘final adjudication . . . of an identical issue . . . actually litig

2020To repeat, we may affirm the summary judgment if it is correct on any 14 ground, including on the ground of issue preclusion.7 (County of San Mateo v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at pp. 729-730.) Res judicata is often used “as an umbrella term encompassing both claim preclusion and issue preclusion, which [is] described as two separate ‘aspects’ of an overarching doctrine. [Citations.] Claim preclusion, the ‘“‘primary aspect’”’ of res judicata, acts to bar claims that were, or should have been, advanced in a previous suit involving the same parties. [Citation.] Issue preclusion, the

2025(Cal Sierra Development, Inc. v. George Reed, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 663, 671 .) This bar on relitigation may be achieved by raising 16 the res judicata defense in a demurrer (Boyd v. Freeman (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 847, 855 ), a summary judgment motion (Ayala v. Dawson (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1319, 1325 ), or other pretrial motion (see, e.g., In re Marriage of Brubaker & Strum (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 525 , 532 (Brubaker) [in limine motion].) Here, the trial court never barred relitigation of any claims or issues based on the prior family court proceedings.

2022(See DKN Holdings, supra, 61 Cal.4th at pp. 823–824.) The two types of preclusion have different requirements.” (Cal Sierra, supra, 14 Cal.App.5th at p. 671 .) “ ‘Claim preclusion “prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.” [Citation.] Claim preclusion arises if a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties [or their privies] (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit. [Citations.] If claim preclusion is established, it operates to bar relitigation of the claim

2024Issue Preclusion Courts “have frequently used ‘res judicata’ as an umbrella term encompassing both claim preclusion and issue preclusion, which [have been] described as two separate ‘aspects’ of an overarching doctrine. [Citations.] Claim preclusion . . . acts to bar claims that were, or should have been, advanced in a previous suit involving the same parties. [Citation.] Issue preclusion, . . . historically called collateral estoppel, describes the bar on relitigating issues that were argued and decided in the first suit.” (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813 , 823–824 (DKN Hold

2024Issue Preclusion Courts “have frequently used ‘res judicata’ as an umbrella term encompassing both claim preclusion and issue preclusion, which [have been] described as two separate ‘aspects’ of an overarching doctrine. [Citations.] Claim preclusion . . . acts to bar claims that were, or should have been, advanced in a previous suit involving the same parties. [Citation.] Issue preclusion, . . . historically called collateral estoppel, describes the bar on relitigating issues that were argued and decided in the first suit.” (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813 , 823–824 (DKN Hold

2024Issue Preclusion Courts “have frequently used ‘res judicata’ as an umbrella term encompassing both claim preclusion and issue preclusion, which [have been] described as two separate ‘aspects’ of an overarching doctrine. [Citations.] Claim preclusion . . . acts to bar claims that were, or should have been, advanced in a previous suit involving the same parties. [Citation.] Issue preclusion, . . . historically called collateral estoppel, describes the bar on relitigating issues that were argued and decided in the first suit.” (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813 , 823–824 (DKN Hold

2024Issue Preclusion Courts “have frequently used ‘res judicata’ as an umbrella term encompassing both claim preclusion and issue preclusion, which [have been] described as two separate ‘aspects’ of an overarching doctrine. [Citations.] Claim preclusion . . . acts to bar claims that were, or should have been, advanced in a previous suit involving the same parties. [Citation.] Issue preclusion, . . . historically called collateral estoppel, describes the bar on relitigating issues that were argued and decided in the first suit.” (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813 , 823–824 (DKN Hold

2024(Villacres, at p. 576.) Issue preclusion “has the dual purpose of protecting litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy and of promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation.” (Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore (1979) 439 U.S. 322, 326 .) c.

2024(Villacres, at p. 576.) Issue preclusion “has the dual purpose of protecting litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy and of promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation.” (Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore (1979) 439 U.S. 322, 326 .) c.

2025(See Samara, supra, 5 Cal.5th at pp. 326–327.) As mentioned ante, claim preclusion requires (inter alia) “ ‘a second suit’ ” involving “ ‘the same cause of action . . . after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit.’ ” (Samara, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 326 .) “A judgment is on the merits . . . ‘if the substance of the claim is tried and determined . . . .’ (7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Judgment, § 313, p. 864.)” (Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61, 77 .) Similarly, issue preclusion requires “ ‘final adjudication . . . of an identical issue . . . actually litig

2025(Cal Sierra Development, Inc. v. George Reed, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 663, 671 .) This bar on relitigation may be achieved by raising 16 the res judicata defense in a demurrer (Boyd v. Freeman (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 847, 855 ), a summary judgment motion (Ayala v. Dawson (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1319, 1325 ), or other pretrial motion (see, e.g., In re Marriage of Brubaker & Strum (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 525 , 532 (Brubaker) [in limine motion].) Here, the trial court never barred relitigation of any claims or issues based on the prior family court proceedings.

2025(Cal Sierra Development, Inc. v. George Reed, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 663, 671 .) This bar on relitigation may be achieved by raising 16 the res judicata defense in a demurrer (Boyd v. Freeman (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 847, 855 ), a summary judgment motion (Ayala v. Dawson (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1319, 1325 ), or other pretrial motion (see, e.g., In re Marriage of Brubaker & Strum (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 525 , 532 (Brubaker) [in limine motion].) Here, the trial court never barred relitigation of any claims or issues based on the prior family court proceedings.

2025“The law of preclusion helps to ensure that a dispute resolved in one case is not relitigated in a later case.” (Samara v. Matar (2018) 5 Cal.5th 322, 326 (Samara).) “It ‘rests upon 7 the sound policy of limiting litigation by preventing a party who has had one fair adversary hearing on an issue from again drawing it into controversy and subjecting the other party to further expense in its reexamination.’ ” (City of Oakland v. Oakland Police & Fire Retirement System (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 210, 228 .) “We have frequently used ‘res judicata’ as an umbrella term encompassing both claim preclusion

2024Our Supreme Court has “frequently used ‘res judicata’ as an umbrella term encompassing both claim preclusion and issue preclusion, which [it] described as two separate ‘aspects’ of an overarching doctrine.” (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 823 (DKN Holdings).) The primary aspect is now referred to as “claim preclusion” rather than “res judicata.” (Id. at p. 824; Samara v. Matar (2018) 5 Cal.5th 322, 326 .) The secondary aspect is now referred to as “issue preclusion” rather than “direct or collateral estoppel.” (DKN Holdings, supra, at p. 824 ; Samara v. Matar, supra, at p.

2024“For purposes of collateral estoppel, an issue was actually litigated in a prior proceeding if it was properly raised, submitted for determination, and determined in that proceeding. [Citation.] In considering whether these criteria have been met, courts look carefully at the entire record from the prior proceeding, including the pleadings, the evidence, the jury instructions, and any special jury findings or verdicts.” (Hernandez v. City of Pomona (2009) 46 Cal.4th 501, 511 ; accord People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 452 .) The record Appellants have produced of these earlier proceedings

2021(See In re Kobe A. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1122 .) II Claim/Issue Preclusion Do Not Apply The term “ ‘res judicata’ ” is often used “as an umbrella term encompassing both claim preclusion and issue preclusion, which [is] described as two separate ‘aspects’ of an overarching doctrine. [Citations.] Claim preclusion, the ‘ “ ‘primary aspect’ ” ’ of res judicata, acts to bar claims that were, or should have been, advanced in a previous suit involving the same parties. [Citation.] Issue preclusion, the ‘ “ ‘secondary aspect’ ” ’ historically called collateral estoppel, describes the bar on rel

2021(See Boeken, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 797 ; In re Marriage of Williamson (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1318 (Williamson) [final orders cannot be relitigated]; In re Marriage of Gruen (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 627 , 637–638 [same]; Wodicka v. Wodicka (1976) 17 Cal.3d 181, 188 (Wodika) [same].) We find this contention unavailing. 7 As noted, there was new information presented in response to G.S.’s 2019 motion: A Department representative stated that the Department failed to include G.S.’s apartment number in the address to which notice of the 2015 motion was mailed.

2020We find no error. “‘In reviewing an order sustaining a demurrer, we examine the operative complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory.’ [Citation.] If the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, we consider whether there is a ‘reasonable possibility’ that the defect in the complaint could be cured by amendment. [Citation.] The burden is on [the] plaintiff[] to prove that amendment could cure the defect.” (King v. CompPartners, Inc. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1039, 1050 .) The term “‘res judicata’” is often used “as an umbrel

2020To repeat, we may affirm the summary judgment if it is correct on any 14 ground, including on the ground of issue preclusion.7 (County of San Mateo v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at pp. 729-730.) Res judicata is often used “as an umbrella term encompassing both claim preclusion and issue preclusion, which [is] described as two separate ‘aspects’ of an overarching doctrine. [Citations.] Claim preclusion, the ‘“‘primary aspect’”’ of res judicata, acts to bar claims that were, or should have been, advanced in a previous suit involving the same parties. [Citation.] Issue preclusion, the

2017Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983) 460 U.S. 462 [ 75 L.Ed.2d 206 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 ].) 8 All of the defendants other than the Ioanes defaulted. 9 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. 10 As discussed further below, the parties debate whether certain of Briana’s claims are haired by “res judicata.” Our high court explained in DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 823-824 [ 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 809 , 352 P.3d 378 ] (DKN Holdings) that the term “res judicata” is imprecise, as it has been used “as an umbrella term encompassing both c

2017Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983) 460 U.S. 462 [ 75 L.Ed.2d 206 , 103 S.Ct. 1303 ].) 8 All of the defendants other than the Ioanes defaulted. 9 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. 10 As discussed further below, the parties debate whether certain of Briana’s claims are haired by “res judicata.” Our high court explained in DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 823-824 [ 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 809 , 352 P.3d 378 ] (DKN Holdings) that the term “res judicata” is imprecise, as it has been used “as an umbrella term encompassing both c

2015(Ibid.) 6 of the plaintiff's case, or has demonstrated that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of trial, such that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." (Guz v. Bechtel National Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334 , fns. omitted.) " 'We are not bound by the [trial] court's stated reasons for its summary judgment ruling; rather, we examine the facts before the trial court then independently determine their effect as a matter of law.' " (Basurto v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 866, 877 .) I A 1 The doctrine of res