Gribovszki v. Stanford University CA6

Filed 7/11/13 Gribovszki v. Stanford University CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THOMAS GRIBOVSZKI, H037663 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. CV110340)

v.

STANFORD UNIVERSITY,

Defendant and Respondent.

Thomas Gribovszki, proceeding in pro per, appeals a judgment entered following the trial court’s denial of his motion for leave to amend and dismissal of his complaint against defendant Stanford University (Stanford) with prejudice. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE This case is based on plaintiff’s enrollment in 1996, and subsequent removal in 2002 for failing to meet minimum academic progress from Stanford’s PhD program in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Plaintiff brought his first two actions against Stanford in 2006, alleging he was entitled to a Master’s Degree. The trial court dismissed these actions, and plaintiff did not appeal. Plaintiff brought the current action in 2008 against Stanford, its Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Brian Cantwell, and 10 other individuals.

Defendants demurred to plaintiff’s initial complaint. The court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint in December 2008, naming Stanford as the sole defendant. In it, plaintiff alleged arbitrary and capricious stonewalling, delay and denial of master degree application, breach of contract, business tort, and other causes. Stanford demurred to the first amended complaint, joined by the other defendants named in the initial 2008 complaint. Following a hearing in March 2009, the trial court sustained the demurrer to the first amended complaint, without leave to amend, on the ground that the action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The court entered a judgment of dismissal, and plaintiff appealed. In November 2010, this court affirmed the trial court as to six of the seven causes of action in the first amended complaint. Specifically, the first six causes of action of plaintiff’s first amended complaint challenged Stanford’s denial of a master’s degree. The doctrine of res judicata bared those causes of action, because plaintiff’s degree conferral claims were the subject of a prior judgment on the merits. However, the seventh cause of action of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“business tort—unfair business practices”) challenged Stanford’s withholding of student transcripts. Because plaintiff did not assert this claim in his prior actions, it was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata. This court stated: “Upon independent review, we conclude that res judicata bars all of the claims asserted in this action, except the seventh cause of action alleging ‘business tort.’ Because the pleading defects in that cause of action may be curable, we reverse and remand, directing the trial court to give plaintiff an opportunity to amend as to the seventh cause of action only.” Plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing that this court denied in December 2010, and in February 2011, the California Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s petition for review.