On 07/24/2017 PATRIC JONES filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against RANDALL DOUTHIT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are GREGORY KEOSIAN and DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB
HER HONOR INC.
QUEEN BEE PRODUCTIONS INC.
DOUTHIT PRODUCTIONS LTD.
BIG TICKET PICTURES INC.
DOES 1 - 100
DOES 1 THROUGH 100
WHITE WILLIAM A.
HILL FARRER & BURRILL LLP
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
KETTLE DAVID A. ESQ.
KETTEL DAVID ANDREW ESQ.
7/27/2018: Minute Order
8/9/2018: NOTICE RE: RESCHEDULED HEARING ON DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
9/14/2018: PLAINTIFF PATRIC JONES'S AMENDED OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER OF DEFENDANTS ETC.
9/19/2018: EX PARTE APPLICATION OF PLAINTIFF PATRIC JONES FOR ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' DEMURRERS, ETC
10/25/2018: Notice of Ruling
12/11/2017: Minute Order
12/4/2017: REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION PENDING RESOLUTION OF DISSOLUTION MATTER
12/8/2017: CALIFORNIA CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE SECTION 128.7 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF PATRIC JONES AND HER COUNSEL
10/31/2017: NOTICE OF RULING
10/13/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
7/28/2017: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Notice of Ruling; Filed by Randall Douthit (Defendant); Douthit Productions Ltd. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Status Conference (Re Appeal) - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Status Conference Re: Appeal)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Proof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Patric Jones (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 09:00 AM in Department 61; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ((Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling (Ruling Re Attorney G. Cresswell Templeton III's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Patric Jones); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Patric Jones (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Response to Motion to Be Relieved As Counsel; Filed by Her Honor, Inc. (Defendant); Queen Bee Productions, Inc. (Defendant); Big Ticket Pictures, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Response to Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Randall Douthit (Defendant); Douthit Productions Ltd. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2017-10-04 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
PLAINTIFF PATRIC JONES S OPPOSITION TO NOTICE OF RELATED CASERead MoreRead Less
Opposition Document; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Patric Jones (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF QUASI-CONTRACT ;ETCRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC669577 Hearing Date: September 24, 2020 Dept: 61
Defendants Judith Sheindlin, Her Honor, Inc., Queen Bee Productions, Inc., Big Ticket Pictures, Inc., Randall Douthit, and Douthit Productions, Ltd’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED as to all causes of action without leave to amend.
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
A party may move for a judgment on the pleadings as to an entire complaint or as to a particular cause of action in a complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 438 subd. (c)(2)(A).) If a defendant moves for a judgment on the pleadings and argues that a complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant, then the court should grant a defendant’s motion only if the court finds as a matter of law that the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute the cause of action. (See id., § 438 subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii); see also Mechanical Contractors Assn. v. Greater Bay Area Assn. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 672, 677.)
“The standard for granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Bezirdjian v. O’Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321.) When considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court not only should assume that all facts alleged in the SAC are true but also should give those alleged facts a liberal construction. (See Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (2000) 24 Cal.4th 468, 515–516, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, 12 P.3d 720.) In particular, the court should liberally construe the alleged facts “‘with a view to attaining substantial justice among the parties.’ [Citation.]” (See Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1226, 1232, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 900 P.2d 601.)
Defendants argue that the final adjudication of the status of the treatment as a non-community asset bars Jones’s claims here by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion. (Motion at pp. 10–13.) “Issue preclusion prohibits the relitigation of issues argued and decided in a previous case, even if the second suit raises different causes of action. Under issue preclusion, the prior judgment conclusively resolves an issue actually litigated and determined in the first action.” (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824.) Here, because all of Jones’s claims rely on her allegation that she possesses a community property interest in the treatment, and because that issue was fully and finally litigated in the dissolution matter, Defendants argue that they are entitled to judgment on Jones’s claims. (Motion at pp. 10–13.)
The court agrees that a necessary element for each of Jones’s claims is the existence of her community property interest in the treatments at issue. (Complaint ¶¶ 27, 35, 45, 52, 56, 62, 66, 70, 75.) The court also agrees that it has been actually litigated and resolved in the dissolution proceedings in Case No. BD469787. (Motion RJN Exh. A.) Accordingly, Jones’s claims are barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion.
The motion is GRANTED without leave to amend.
Defendants to provide notice.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases