Zimmerman v. Wells Fargo Bank CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Aug 24, 2020 No. B294935Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata because they arose from the same primary right and transaction as a prior lawsuit that the plaintiff had voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

Issues

Whether the trial court properly sustained a demurrer without leave to amend based on the doctrine of res judicata.
Whether a voluntary dismissal with prejudice constitutes a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes.
Whether the plaintiff's current claims involve the same primary right as those litigated or capable of being litigated in prior proceedings.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Zimmerman voluntarily dismissed Zimmerman 3 with prejudice, and a dismissal with prejudice is “equivalent of a final judgment on the merits” for res judicata purposes.”

“Res judicata also precludes litigation of issues that could have been, but were not, litigated in a prior proceeding.”

“This action alleges a violation of the same primary right—i.e., to be free from the foreclosure sale of the property.”

Filed 8/24/20 Zimmerman v. Wells Fargo Bank CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

LYNN BEHRENS 2d Civil No. B294935 ZIMMERMAN, (Super. Ct. No. 18CV01746) (Santa Barbara County) Plaintiff and Appellant,

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant and Respondent.

This is an appeal from the sixth lawsuit involving the same parties (Lynn Behrens Zimmerman and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.), the same property, the same loans, and the same foreclosure sale. As in the previous lawsuits, Zimmerman sued Wells Fargo alleging several causes of action, including wrongful foreclosure. The trial court sustained Wells Fargo’s demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend, finding that the complaint was barred by res judicata. It entered judgment in favor of Wells Fargo. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2003, Zimmerman and another person purchased property with a loan obtained from Wells Fargo. In 2007, they obtained a second loan from Wells Fargo. The 2007 deed of trust named Zimmerman as co-borrower and trustor, and Wells Fargo as the beneficiary. In 2014, Zimmerman defaulted on the loan. One year later, the property was sold to Wells Fargo in a foreclosure sale. Prior Cases Zimmerman 1 In June 2015, Wells Fargo filed an unlawful detainer lawsuit against Zimmerman. (Zimmerman 1, Case No. 15CV01403.) The trial court entered a default judgment against Zimmerman in October 2015. Zimmerman 2 In July 2015, Zimmerman filed a lawsuit against Wells Fargo in federal district court. (Zimmerman 2, Case No. CV-15-053320CAS-MRW.) She alleged 27 causes of action, including wrongful foreclosure. Zimmerman voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit in November 2015. Zimmerman 3 One week after dismissing Zimmerman 2, Zimmerman filed a lawsuit against Wells Fargo in Santa Barbara County Superior Court. (Zimmerman 3, Case No. 15CV04112.) She alleged causes of action for wrongful foreclosure, unfair competition, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, elder abuse, unjust enrichment, and cancellation of instruments. She sought an order cancelling the documents related to the foreclosure.

Zimmerman v. Wells Fargo Bank CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

GILBERT, P. J.

PERREN, J.

AI Brief