Lamperti v. U.S. Bank

Filed 8/10/06 Lamperti v. U.S. Bank CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

Anthony Lamperti appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer to his complaint without leave to amend. He contends that the court erred in concluding that his claims were barred by res judicata. We will affirm the judgment and impose sanctions against Lamperti's counsel for filing a frivolous appeal.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Lamperti's appeal turns on the res judicata effect of the final judgment against him in his prior litigation against the same parties on the same claims. (Lamperti v. U.S. Bank et al., San Mateo County CIV432707, appeal No. A105253 (Lamperti I).) We therefore begin by summarizing his allegations and the disposition in the prior case, before turning to his allegations in the matter now before us.

A. Lamperti I Lamperti alleged that his parents had rented a safe deposit box at U.S. Bank (Bank), they had died, and he was entitled to access the box as successor trustee to the family trust, in order to â€