SOUTH SUTTER v. LJ SUTTER PARTNERS Part-IV
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html > <head> <title>SOUTH SUTTER v</title> </head> <body> <div> <br/><b >SOUTH SUTTER v. LJ SUTTER PARTNERS</b> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>Filed 3/16/11 <br/><u> </u> <br/><u> </u> <br/><u> </u> <br/><u> </u> <br/><u>CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</u> <br/><u> </u> <br/><u> </u> <br/><u> </u> <br/>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA <br/>THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT <br/>(Sutter) <br/>---- <br/> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 > <tr > <td width=394 valign=top > <br/>SOUTH SUTTER, LLC, <br/> <br/> Plaintiff and Appellant, <br/> <br/> v. <br/> <br/>LJ SUTTER PARTNERS, L.P., et al., <br/> <br/> Defendants and Respondents. <br/> </td> <td width=230 valign=top > <br/>C058206 <br/> <br/>(Super. Ct. No. <br/>CV-CS-07-2068) </td> </tr> <tr > <td width=394 valign=top > <br/> <br/>SOUTH SUTTER, LLC, <br/> <br/> Plaintiff and Appellant, <br/> <br/> v. <br/> <br/>ANDERSON WEST, LLC, <br/> <br/> Defendant and Respondent. <br/> </td> <td width=230 valign=top > <br/> <br/>C059554 <br/> <br/>(Super. Ct. No. <br/>CV-CS-07-2068) <br/> </td> </tr> </table> <br/><b >STORY CONTINUE FROM PART III….</b> <br/><b > </b> <br/><b > </b> <br/>Applying direct estoppel here does not convert South Sutter's voluntary dismissal of Sutter I without prejudice into a dismissal with prejudice. Because no judgment was entered on the merits of the Sutter I complaint, South Sutter was free to file a second complaint. In addition, applying direct estoppel to the first prong of the anti-SLAPP motion does not bar South Sutter from prevailing on its claim. It simply subjects it to an earlier showing of proof, somewhat akin to a summary judgment motion, than would otherwise be required. There is no retraxit here. <br/>South Sutter argues the attorney fees order nonetheless does not qualify for establishing a direct estoppel. It claims there was no final judgment on the merits of its Sutter I claims and the only issue actually litigated was whether the Miller defendants were prevailing parties. We have already shown this argument is incorrect. There need not be a judgment on the merits of the complaint in order to apply direct estoppel in the second action. Only the issue being argued in the second action had to be fully and finally litigated in the first action. We have already shown that was the case here. <br/>South Sutter claims Sutter II is not based on the same cause of action as Sutter I, as it seeks only declaratory relief based on contractual and property rights granted under the Option Agreement, not the resolution of breach of contract and tort claims it filed in Sutter I. This argument ignores the concept of the â€