Samara v. Matar

419 P.3d 924 (Cal. 2018)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Samara (P) was missing a tooth. Dr. Matar (D) recommended that she receive a dental implant. Dr. Nahigian performed the implantation surgery. P sued them both for professional negligence. P contended that D is vicariously liable for former defendant Nahigian's alleged tort. Nahigian moved for summary judgment. He argued that the suit against him was untimely and that he did not cause P's alleged injuries. The trial court agreed that the suit was untimely with respect to Nahigian and further agreed that no material factual dispute prevented judgment in Nahigian's favor on the issue of causation. The court entered judgment on both grounds. P appealed. P conceded based on the statute of limitations but opposed the trial court's determination regarding a lack of causation. The Court of Appeals refused. It also stated, “Because the question is not before us, we also do not address whether collateral estoppel may be used with regard to an alternative ground for judgment not reviewed by the appellate court.” D then moved for summary judgment in the trial court. D argued that the court's earlier no-causation determination precluded holding him liable for Nahigian's conduct. The trial court agreed, granting D's motion for summary judgment. Because Nahigian was not liable to P for his conduct, P could not be liable for that conduct vicariously. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded. Preclusion provided no basis for the trial court's decision. The court observed that the prior judgment was affirmed solely because of the statute of limitations, which the court believed to be a “purely procedural ground” rather than a decision on the merits. The Court of Appeal ruled that claim preclusion was unavailable because P sued Nahigian and D in a single lawsuit, rather than two successive suits. The court further held that Skidmore was inapplicable to issue preclusion, concluding that “an affirmance on an alternative ground operates as collateral estoppel/issue preclusion only on the ground reached by the appellate court.” D appealed.