Hung et al v. Tribal Technologies et al

Filing 179

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge William Alsup [granting 170 Motion for Summary Judgment]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

CINDY K. HUNG (deceased), LI CHING
CHU and ROBERT CHING LIANG HUNG,
individually and as successors to Cindy K.
Hung (deceased),
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

No. C 11-04990 WHA

v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TRIBAL TECHNOLOGIES and
GLENBOROUGH 400 ECR, LLC,
Defendants.
/
INTRODUCTION
In this diversity action alleging wrongful death, the final remaining defendant moves for
summary judgment based on res judicata. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
STATEMENT
In October 2011, plaintiffs Cindy Hung (deceased) and her parents, Li Ching Chu and

23

Robert Ching Liang Hung, brought this action against defendants Tribal Technologies, Inc., and

24

Glenborough 400 ECR, LLC. Plaintiffs also brought a parallel state action in the Superior

25

Court of San Mateo County alleging many of the same claims against Tribal Technologies,

26

Glenborough, and additional individual defendants.

27
28

Here is the essence of both actions. According to the operative complaints, Cindy began
working for Tribal Technologies in January 2010. Her work environment allegedly turned

1

hostile when she declined to go on a date with her supervisor, who later emotionally abused her

2

by “calling her incompetent” and “reprimanding [her] without reason or justification.”

3

Reportedly, other co-workers also contributed to Cindy’s hostile work environment, and

4

managers at Tribal Technologies took advantage of female employees by asking them for

5

sexual favors and threatening to fire them from their jobs. On October 21, 2010, Cindy’s body

6

was found on the rooftop of a breezeway area of her office’s building after co-workers had

7

allegedly beaten her into unconsciousness, dumped her body into the breezeway area, and left

8

her there to die. The operative complaints further asserted that defendant and its employees

9

have since covered up Cindy’s death by giving false information to the coroner’s office and San
Mateo police investigators.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

In August 2013, the state court dismissed Glenborough from that suit and entered

12

judgment in its favor. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. The undersigned judge

13

thereafter stayed the action as to Tribal Technologies, and granted Glenborough’s motion for

14

summary judgment based on res judicata. Our court of appeals affirmed (Dkt. Nos. 102, 117,

15

163).

16

In September 2016, the state court granted summary judgment for defendant Tribal

17

Technologies. The California Court of Appeal affirmed (Knight Exh. D, Townsend Exh. A).

18

The undersigned judge thereafter lifted the stay as to Tribal Technologies. The result now is

19

that Tribal Technologies has prevailed in the state action, but remains a defendant in the instant

20

action.*

21
22

ANALYSIS
Res judicata is the sole ground for the instant motion. Federal courts must “give the

23

same preclusive effect to state court judgments that those judgments would be given in the

24

courts of the State from which the judgments emerged.” Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of

25

Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984) (citation omitted). Here, California law requires three elements

26

for res judicata to apply: “(1) A claim or issue raised in the present action is identical to a claim

27
28

* Accompanying the instant motion for summary judgment is a request for judicial notice of
complaints, orders, and other court filings from the instant action and the state court action (Knight Exhs. A–F,
Townsend Exh. A). This request is unopposed by plaintiffs, and is GRANTED.

2

1

or issue litigated in a prior proceeding; (2) the prior proceeding resulted in a final judgment on

2

the merits; and (3) the party against whom the doctrine is being asserted was a party or in

3

privity with a party to the prior proceeding.” People v. Barragan, 32 Cal. 4th 236, 253 (2004).

4

As explained below, all three elements are satisfied.

5

First, the claims in the instant action are identical to those in the state court proceeding.

6

Claims are identical when they are based on the same primary right. City of Martinez v.

7

Texaco Trading & Transp., Inc., 353 F.3d 758, 762 (9th Cir. 2003) (applying California law).

8

To determine if claims are based on the same primary rights, courts look to “the rights sought to

9

be vindicated and, specifically, the claimed harm.” Ibid. Here, in both the state and federal
actions, the operative complaints alleged the same claimed harm: that Cindy suffered a hostile

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

work environment as a result of her supervisor, her co-workers, and Tribal Technologies; that

12

she was beaten by her co-workers and left to die on the rooftop of a breezeway area of her

13

office’s building; and that Tribal Technologies and others have since covered up Cindy’s death.

14

This order finds that both actions involve claims based on the same primary right, and are

15

therefore identical.

16
17

Second, the state action resulted in a summary judgment, which, under California law,
is a final judgment on the merits. Stuart v. Lilves, 210 Cal. App. 3d 1215, 1219 (1989).

18

Third, the party against whom res judicata is being asserted was a party to the prior

19

proceeding. Plaintiffs attempt to argue that the parties are different between the state and

20

federal actions because the federal court action named Tribal Technologies and the state court

21

action named individual defendants. This misses the mark both factually and legally. Not only

22

was Tribal Technologies named as a defendant in both the federal and state actions, but the

23

legal standard looks to the party against whom res judicata is being asserted. Barragan, 32 Cal.

24

4th at 253. Here, defendant asserts res judicata against the same plaintiffs it faced in the state

25

action.

26
27

As a result, all elements are satisfied such that res judicata bars plaintiffs’ claims against
Tribal Technologies in the instant action.

28
3

1

In opposing the present motion, plaintiffs argue that questions of material fact remain as

2

to the underlying claims. This order need not address this argument because res judicata

3

applies.

4
5

CONCLUSION
The Court again extends its condolences to plaintiffs for the loss of their loved one.

6

Nevertheless, under the law of res judicata, defendant Tribal Technologies’ motion for

7

summary judgment must be GRANTED.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: February 12, 2018.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4