People v. Damon
Decision Date | 18 December 1996 |
Docket Number | No. C022807,C022807 |
Citation | 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 504,51 Cal.App.4th 958 |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9182, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,167 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jeffrey Arter DAMON, Defendant and Appellant. |
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Herschel T. Elkins, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Reiter, Michael R. Botwin, Deputy Attorneys General, Michael L. Ramsey, District Attorney and Robert W. MacKenzie, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Jeffrey Arter Damon, doing business as Autometrics, appeals from a judgment following a court trial in the People's civil action alleging unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof.Code, §§ 17206, 17500) 1 in defendant's operation of an automotive repair dealership, pursuant to the Automotive Repair Act (§ 9880 et seq.). Defendant contends this action, which followed an administrative proceeding by the Department of Consumer Affairs, was barred by res judicata, the rule against splitting causes of action, and the double jeopardy clause of the federal Constitution. We shall affirm the judgment.
Although this is an appeal from the civil action, we begin chronologically with the antecedent administrative proceeding which, according to defendant, bars the civil action.
In July 1993, the Chief of the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) of the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), represented by the Attorney General's office, filed an administrative accusation against "AUTO METRICS ... JEFFREY DAMON, Owner," alleging the following violations of the Automotive Repair Act, sections 9884.7 and 9884.9: False representations that repair work had been done, failure to give written estimates, charging in excess of estimates, failure to document additional customer authorization for revised estimates, performing unnecessary work, and failure to record odometer readings on work orders. The accusation sought (1) temporary or permanent invalidation of the automotive repair dealer registration issued to Autometrics, Jeffrey Damon, owner, pursuant to section 9884.7, and (2) reimbursement of investigation costs pursuant to section 125.3.
In January 1994, the parties submitted the matter to the administrative law judge (ALJ) upon stipulations. The ALJ issued a proposed decision to place Autometrics on probation for three years, with registration suspended for 14 days, and an order to pay $4,600 in reimbursement for DCA's investigation costs. Autometric's registration was also revoked, but the revocation was stayed for the three year probationary period, and the stay would become permanent and the registration restored if the probationary period was successfully completed without further violation. 2
In May 1994, the interim director of DCA adopted the ALJ's decision, effective August 13, 1994. DCA closed defendant's repair shop for two weeks in September 1994.
On August 11, 1994, the People, represented by the Butte County District Attorney, filed against defendant doing business as Autometrics the civil complaint which is the subject of this appeal. The complaint alleged defendant engaged in unlawful business practices in his operation of his automotive repair dealership. The first amended complaint, which is the operative pleading, alleged unfair competition (§ 17200) and false advertising (§ 17500). The first count, for unfair competition, alleged the same violations of the Automotive Repair Act which were the subject of the administrative proceeding, i.e., failure to provide a written estimate, failure to record odometer readings, falsely stating automotive parts had been replaced, and performing repair work without obtaining customer authorization, in violation of sections 9884.7 and 9884.9. 3 The second count alleged false and misleading advertising in that defendant placed an advertisement in the 1993 Pacific Bell Yellow Pages falsely claiming Autometrics was approved by the California State Automobile Association (AAA).
The pleading sought injunctive relief to enjoin further violations, as well as restitution to consumers, civil penalties pursuant to sections 17206 and 17500, and costs of investigation.
Defendant demurred to the first amended complaint on the grounds of res judicata, the rule against splitting causes of action, and double jeopardy, because the first count of the civil complaint alleged the same misconduct that was the subject of the administrative proceeding.
The trial court took judicial notice of documents from the administrative proceeding but overruled the demurrer, concluding (1) the present action sought civil penalties unavailable in the previous administrative proceeding, which was for revocation of registration, (2) section 17205 4 provides cumulative remedies, and (3) the double jeopardy case relied upon by defendant applied only where the second sanction was grossly disproportionate to the damages caused.
In September 1995, a court trial was held. 5 Defendant filed a motion in limine for judgment on the pleadings, revisiting the issues raised on demurrer. The trial court took judicial notice of documents from the administrative proceeding. The trial court denied the motion as to res judicata and splitting causes of action and reserved ruling on the double jeopardy issue.
Following the court trial, the trial court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings and stated in its ultimate "STATEMENT OF DECISION AND JUDGMENT" in favor of the People:
"... Defendant is ordered to refrain from violating any portion of Article 3 of Chapter 20.3 of the Automotive Repair Act [§ 9880 et seq.] and to refrain from violating ... sections 17200 and 17500 for a period of five years, beginning September 21, 1995...." Each side bore its own costs and attorneys' fees.
Defendant appeals.
Defendant contends the first amended complaint was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We disagree.
(7 Witkin, Cal.Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Judgment, § 188, p. 621, original italics.) The doctrine of res judicata has a double aspect. "In its primary aspect the doctrine of res judicata [or "claim preclusion"] operates as a bar to the maintenance of a second suit between the same parties on the same cause of action." (Clark v. Lesher (1956) 46 Cal.2d 874, 880, 299 P.2d 865; see also, People v. Sims (1982) 32 Cal.3d 468, 477, fn. 6, 186 Cal.Rptr. 77, 651 P.2d 321.) "[I]n a new action on the same cause of action, a prior judgment for the defendant is a complete bar ..., and a prior judgment for the plaintiff likewise precludes the new action because it results in a merger, superseding his claim by a right of action on the judgment...." (7 Witkin, op. cit. supra, § 189, pp. 622-623.) The secondary aspect is ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Niles Freeman Equipment v. Joseph
...claim notwithstanding the adjudication of the first claim.'" (Id. at p. 622, 245 Cal.Rptr. 103; reiterated by Damon, supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at p. 970, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 504.) Moody asserts: "Here, [the Department] initiated separate decertification and suspension proceedings for redress of the ......
-
Hi-Desert Med. Ctr. v. Douglas
...regardless of whether this may have been the Department's position, it was never adopted by the courts. Thus, People v. Damon (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 958, 974, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 504 and Le Parc Community Assn. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1170–1174, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 40......
-
Le Parc Community Ass'n v. W.C.A.B.
...that both an administrative proceeding and a civil action may be brought; and res judicata does not apply. (People v. Damon (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 958, 972, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 504.) b. Collateral Estoppel "Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, `precludes relitigation of issues argued and dec......
-
Kelly v. Vons Companies, Inc.
...an action from relitigating in a second proceeding matters litigated and determined in a prior proceeding.' " (People v. Damon (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 958, 968, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 504; see also Branson v. Sun-Diamond Growers (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 327, 339-340, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 314; Rest.2d Judgment......
-
Arraignment and pretrial matters
...Cal.App.3d 155; U.S. v. Ursery (1996) 518 U.S. 267; People v. Superior Court (Moore) (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1202; People v. Damon (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 958, U.S. v. Schiller 120 F3d 192 (9th Cir 1997); Hudson v. United States (1997) 522 U.S. 93; Rivera v. Pugh 194 F3d 1064 (9th Cir. 1999).] ......
-
Table of cases
...People v. Dailey (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d Supp. 13, §2:73.6 People v. Dakin (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1026, §1:21.6 People v. Damon (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 958, §3:36.1 People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 864, §1:21.1.1(a), 9:94.1 People v. Daniels (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 29, §14:37 People v. Dar......