A strong opening and closing

Here's published case today with a great opening and closing:

"There are no free houses." These are the words of the bankruptcy judge who allowed the instant home foreclosure to go forward. It rejected appellant's theory of "wrongful foreclosure." Thereafter, the same theory was rejected in an unlawful detainer proceeding. Undeterred, appellant F. Wood Boyce sued his lender for "wrongful foreclosure" because the $1.155 million deed of trust was placed in a mortgage investment pool before the foreclosure. Appellant also sued the transferees/assignees to the promissory note and deed of trust, the foreclosure trustee and company that processed the foreclosure documents, and the person who purchased the property.

The trial court ruled that the action was subject to a res judicata/collateral estoppel bar and sustained, without leave to amend, demurrers to the First Amended Complaint. We affirm. The doctrine of res judicata, of which collateral estoppel is a part, encompasses both claim preclusion and issue preclusion. (Mycogen Corp. v Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896-897, fn. 7.) "The best way of remembering these doctrines clearly is to view collateral estoppel as a miniature of res judicata; the former applies to issues, the later to entire claims or lawsuits." (Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (1995 2d ed.) p. 169.) 

[8 pages of opinion follow, and then,]

Appellant lost in the bankruptcy court. He lost in United States District Court. He lost in the unlawful detainer court. He lost in the Appellate Department of the Superior Court. He lost in Superior Court. He now loses here. As the late eminent federal appellate jurist Rugierro Aldisert would say, "Basta," which translates from Italian to English as, Enough! (United States v Desmond (1982) 670 Fed. 2nd 414, 420)

How great to start off w/a nice hook, then cite Bryan Garner, and then finish strong with Judge Aldisert. (The format for the final citation seems off, however; it's neither Bluebook nor Yellowbook, is missing italics and at least a few periods, and is actually to a dissenting opinion. But what a great cite!)

Also, perhaps in the Basta, category, note that the State Bar's Committee of Bar Examiners voted Friday to shorten the bar exam to just two days. This will save the Bar approximately $895,000. And it will give us all even more to gripe about to younger lawyers: "In MY day, I had to take the bar exam over three days! ... In the snow... Uphill..."

Also, this case here (from Friday) has an outstanding opening and closing:

“Nature, not judges, should be in charge of making mountains out of mole hills.” (Crum v. City of Stockton (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 519, 524 (conc. & dis. opn. of Reynoso, J.).)

This writ petition came to this court on a request by petitioner Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai) to stay a scheduled judgment debtor examination of its president and chief executive officer over a dispute regarding an attempt by real party Adam Rosen (Rosen) to collect supposed postjudgment interest of $462.50 on an attorney fee award of $42,203.

[Insert opinion here... and then:]

Assuredly, such a tactic was designed to get Hyundai’s attention. But it had the unintended effect of attracting our attention as well, giving rise to the extraordinary remedy of a peremptory writ in the first instance. We doubt this is a wise use of anyone’s resources.