Kisaka v. U. of Southern Cal. CA2/4

California Court of Appeal May 23, 2024 No. B323698Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, holding that the plaintiff's action was barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.

Issues

Whether the trial court correctly determined that the plaintiff's current action was barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion based on prior federal and state court rulings.
Whether the defendant should be judicially estopped from asserting a claim preclusion defense.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court then sustained the demurrer, without leave to amend, on the ground that the action was barred by claim preclusion.”

“Claim preclusion arises if a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit.”

“Because we hold that res judicata bars this action, we need not consider the statute of limitations issue.”

Filed 5/23/24 Kisaka v. U. of Southern Cal. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

DOUG KISAKA, B323698

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22STCV16703) v.

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kristen S. Escalante, Judge. Affirmed. Doug Kisaka, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Kjar, McKenna Stockalper, Patrick E. Stockalper and Hannah R. Hogoboom for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Doug Kisaka (Kisaka) challenges an order sustaining, without leave to amend, a demurrer filed by defendant University of Southern California (USC). Kisaka contends that the trial court misunderstood the res judicata effect of a prior federal court ruling. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Some of the facts relevant here were discussed in a previous opinion issued by this division. (Kisaka v. University of Southern California (Dec. 21, 2018, B284559) [nonpub. opn.] (Kisaka I).) In March of 2011, Kisaka filed a lawsuit in federal court, alleging several causes of action for race discrimination arising out of his attendance at USC. On April 15, 2014, the court dismissed the case pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 41(b). The dismissal was affirmed on appeal. (Kisaka v. University of Southern California (9th Cir. 2016) 668 Fed.Appx. 747.) In February 2017, Kisaka refiled his action in Los Angeles County Superior Court. In August 2017, that case was dismissed after USC’s demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. Kisaka appealed. This division affirmed, holding that the judgment in the federal case had claim preclusive effect. In April 2020, Kisaka attempted to file another lawsuit against USC in federal court. That case was dismissed at prefiling review.1 The order of

Kisaka v. U. of Southern Cal. CA2/4

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

DOUG KISAKA, B323698

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

ZUKIN, J.

CURREY, P. J.

MORI, J.

AI Brief