Samara v. Matar
8 Cal. App. 5th 796
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In a single lawsuit filed Sept. 6, 2011, Samara sued Dr. Stephen Nahigian (direct negligence) and Dr. Haitham Matar (vicarious and direct negligence) for nerve injury allegedly caused by an oral implant surgery on Aug. 16, 2010.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Nahigian on two alternative grounds: statute of limitations (Code Civ. Proc. § 340.5) and, alternatively, lack of causation; judgment entered for Nahigian.
- On appeal, this court affirmed the judgment as to Nahigian solely on statute-of-limitations grounds and expressly declined to address the alternative causation ruling (Samara I).
- After Samara I, Matar moved for summary judgment arguing (1) issue preclusion/claim preclusion barred vicarious liability because Nahigian’s liability was resolved in Nahigian’s favor, and (2) Samara lacked evidence of Matar’s independent negligence or causation.
- The trial court granted Matar’s motion based on claim preclusion (a ground not urged in Matar’s motion) and on lack of causation for Matar’s direct-liability claims.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: claim preclusion did not apply because the defendants were sued in the same action, and issue preclusion did not bar relitigation of causation because the appellate opinion in Samara I expressly declined to decide causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim preclusion bars Samara's vicarious-liability claim against Matar | Samara: No — she sued both doctors in the same action; claim preclusion requires a prior final judgment in a separate suit | Matar: Yes — same primary right; privity with Nahigian; prior judgment in Nahigian's favor bars the claim | Rejected — claim preclusion inapplicable because this was not a successive suit; both defendants were sued in the same action |
| Whether issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) bars relitigation of causation as to Matar based on the earlier judgment for Nahigian | Samara: No — the appellate decision in Samara I affirmed only on statute-of-limitations and expressly declined to decide causation, so the issue was not actually decided | Matar: Yes — the trial court’s finding on causation stands and should be given preclusive effect against Samara | Rejected — appellate affirmance on a procedural ground that declined to address causation does not preclude relitigation of causation under modern collateral estoppel principles |
| Whether Skidmore requires preclusive effect for issues not addressed on appeal | Samara: Skidmore is distinguishable and modern authority rejects extending preclusion to issues expressly not decided on appeal | Matar: Skidmore and some federal decisions endorse preclusive effect of the full lower-court judgment when affirmed | Held: Court adopts modern rule (Restatement Second §27/comment o) and recent CA authority rejecting Skidmore for issue preclusion; thus no preclusion for issues the appellate court expressly declined to decide |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on Samara's direct-liability claims against Matar | Samara: Opposed; submitted expert declaration addressing causation for Nahigian and argued triable issues as to Matar’s post-op care | Matar: Expert declared Matar’s care met the standard and did not cause injury; no triable issue of causation | The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment as to Matar overall because Matar failed to obtain summary disposition of both distinct causes (vicarious and direct); direct-liability ruling not contested on appeal but reversal required because both causes were not defeated by proper motions |
Key Cases Cited
- DKN Holdings LLC. v. Faerber, 61 Cal.4th 813 (explains claim preclusion and privity when liability derives entirely from another party)
- Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 28 Cal.4th 888 (primary-right theory: all claims based on same primary right must be decided in one suit)
- Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335 (policy considerations for collateral estoppel and fairness in applying issue preclusion)
- Freeman v. Churchill, 30 Cal.2d 453 (employee favorable judgment may preclude employer liability via issue preclusion when actually decided)
- Newport Beach Country Club, Inc. v. Founding Members of Newport Beach Country Club, 140 Cal.App.4th 1120 (adopts Restatement Second §27/comment o approach: appellate affirmance conclusive only as to grounds actually decided)
- Zevnik v. Superior Court, 159 Cal.App.4th 563 (holds collateral estoppel inapplicable where appellate opinion expressly declined to consider an alternative ground)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (stare decisis / obligation to follow superior court precedent)
- Skidmore v. People, 27 Cal. 287 (historical authority suggesting affirmance may have full preclusive effect; court discusses limits and modern departure)