Although No Sanctions Were Imposed, The 2/6 DCA Did Not Mince Words In Warning Plaintiff That Further Attempts To Litigate The Same Subject Matter Will Result In Sanctions.
Plaintiff filed four lawsuits against defendant seeking to vindicate her primary right to ownership interest in her home which had been foreclosed upon and sold at auction. Plaintiff lost on the merits on the first three lawsuits and had appealed the results in two of them – both of which were affirmed. In fact, the Ninth Circuit found one of plaintiff’s appeals to be frivolous – with the results of plaintiff's first lawsuit barring her claims in the second lawsuit.
However, plaintiff pressed on, and after losing her fourth lawsuit against defendant – with the trial court finding it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata – plaintiff appealed in Colebrook v. Cit Bank, N.A., Case No. B305844 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 17, 2021) (published). Because the factual and legal issues raised in plaintiff’s fourth lawsuit were known by plaintiff during her third lawsuit, her argument that res judicata did not apply went nowhere. “Res judicata bars ‘not only the reopening of the original controversy, but also subsequent litigation of all issues which were or could have been raised in the original suit.’” (Torrey Pines Bank v. Superior Court, 216 Cal.App.3d 813, 821 (1989).)
Because plaintiff continued to pursue litigation of her ownership interest in the foreclosed home, despite the matter having been resolved through three previous lawsuits and two appeals, plaintiff opened herself up to appeal sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal. Although the panel decided not to impose sanctions, it warned plaintiff in no uncertain terms that “further attempts to litigate the subject matter of this lawsuit will result in sanctions.”