Mitchell v. T-Mobile USA CA2/4

Filed 5/15/14 Mitchell v. T-Mobile USA CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

CORNELL MITCHELL, B249265

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YC068812) v.

T-MOBILE USA, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stuart M. Rice, Judge. Affirmed. Cornell Mitchell, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Crawford & Bangs and Theresa C. Tate for Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Cornell Mitchell appeals from the judgment of dismissal following the trial court’s sustaining the demurrer filed by defendants T-Mobile USA, Inc., and T-Mobile West Corporation without leave to amend. We affirm.

BACKGROUND In August 2012, plaintiff filed a small claims action against defendants alleging that they wrongfully charged amounts to his cell phone account and suspended his service without justification. In October 2012, a superior court commissioner entered judgment for defendants. Alleging essentially the same facts, plaintiff filed the unlimited civil action against defendants, styled as one for negligence, seeking general and punitive damages for the disconnection of his cell phone. Defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that the doctrine of res judicata barred the action. In opposition, plaintiff argued that res judicata did not apply, because he did not stipulate to the commissioner who heard the earlier small claims action. Therefore, according to plaintiff, the commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide the matter, and the small claims judgment was void. The trial court took judicial notice of the records of the small claims action. The court ruled that commissioners have original jurisdiction over small claims matters without a stipulation by the parties. Thus, the small claims judgment was valid, and barred the current action under res judicata principles. The court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and plaintiff appeals from the resultant judgment of dismissal.