Pyle v. Rastegar CA5

Filed 8/26/14 Pyle v. Rastegar CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

EDWIN L. PYLE, F067350 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 12CECG01383) v.

BEN RASTEGAR, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Mark Wood Snauffer, Judge. Jacques LeBoeuf for Plaintiff and Appellant. Campagne, Campagne & Lerner, Thomas E. Campagne and Wiley R. Driskill for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo-

This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Plaintiff and appellant Edwin L. Pyle sued defendant and respondent Ben Rastegar for breach of contract. Rastegar demurred to Pyle’s complaint on the basis of res judicata. The court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the lawsuit. On appeal, Pyle1 contends the demurrer should be overruled because he did not raise a claim or issue already litigated and decided in an earlier proceeding. We conclude a former judgment collaterally estopped Pyle from pursuing an action for breach of contract. Therefore, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY2 I. The prior proceeding Pyle and his wife Adele leased 118 acres of vineyards to Rastegar for the 2008 growing season. The lease allocated certain expenses between the parties and required Rastegar to “‘farm said land in a farmerlike manner according to best farming methods practiced in this vicinity.’” The lease also provided that Rastegar would harvest and sell the crop, either as raisins or as wine grapes. The Pyles would receive as rent “‘the sum of 22.5% of the proceeds of the sales of the said crop,’” together with reimbursement from the crop proceeds for the cost of electricity to run the irrigation pumps on the property. (Pyle v. Moles, supra, F060873.)

1 In this opinion, “Pyle” refers to Edwin Pyle and “Pyles” refer to Edwin and Adele Pyle. 2 “Because judgment was entered upon the granting of demurrer, our summary of facts is limited to those pled in the complaint, together with facts judicially noticeable.” (Tri-County Special Educ. Local Plan Area v. County of Tuolumne (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 563, 569.) In particular, we have taken judicial notice of our prior decision (Pyle v. Moles (May 8, 2012, F060873) [nonpub. opn.]; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b)(1)) “in deciding whether to sustain a demurrer based upon res judicata” (Carroll v. Puritan Leasing Co. (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 481, 486; see Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459).