Raicevic v. L.A. Dept. of Water and Power CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Mar 26, 2026 No. B342581Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff's negligence action was barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion because the claims had already been litigated and decided in a prior small claims action. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff failed to state a valid cause of action against the public entity defendants, as he failed to identify a statutory basis for liability.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff's superior court action is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata) due to a prior small claims judgment.
Whether the plaintiff sufficiently stated a cause of action for negligence against public entities without citing a statutory basis for liability.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The superior court correctly concluded plaintiff’s claim is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.”

“It is “well established” that claim preclusion “applies to small claims judgments.””

Filed 3/26/26 Raicevic v. L.A. Dept. of Water and Power CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

RADE RAICEVIC, B342581 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. 24CHCV01448)

LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER (LADWP) et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David B. Gelfound, Judge. Affirmed. Rade Raicevic, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Hydee Feldstein Soto, City Attorney, Denise C. Mills, Chief Deputy City Attorney, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Chief Assistant City Attorney, Shaun Dabby Jacobs, Assistant City Attorney, Brian Cheng, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Rade Raicevic asserted a cause of action for general negligence against defendants Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and City of Los Angeles (the City). The superior court sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

BACKGROUND I. Claim for Damages Plaintiff filed a claim for damages with the City on April 12, 2023. He alleged that “around [the] first week of March,” he discovered a leak in the main water line on City property near his house. He further alleged that he spent $2,500 to repair the leak and an additional $300 on materials. He requested damages in the amount of $2,800. The City acknowledged receipt of plaintiff’s claim by letter dated April 20, 2023. By letter dated May 9, 2023, the City asked plaintiff to provide the exact date of the claimed loss. By letter dated May 15, 2023, plaintiff responded1: “Per my recollection, around March 2nd officer from LADWP came at home front door to inform me about main water line leaking on city property, and immediate action is required to stop further water waste. We are asking City Attorney Office to issue $2,800 reimbursement payment for leak repair.” In that same letter, plaintiff requested a “37% reduction from current billing statement” for his water bill, as allegedly promised by an LADWP inspector.

Raicevic v. L.A. Dept. of Water and Power CA2/4

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

COLLINS, ACTING P. J.

MORI, J. TAMZARIAN, J.

AI Brief