Facts

Plaintiff Lisa Marie sued her former business partner in a firm that represented recording industry producers and executives. The former partner ended the partnership, but before he departed, he allegedly retrieved and destroyed business data from the company computer with the assistance of computer specialists. These specialists had provided services to plaintiff, the former business partner, and both, over the years.

After Lisa Marie obtained an arbitration award for her breach of fiduciary duty claim against her former partner, Lisa Marie filed a lawsuit against the persons and companies that allegedly assisted her former partner in appropriating and destroying business data and hardware that allegedly belonged to plaintiff Marie.

Defendants filed demurrers to all plaintiff's six causes of action. The demurrers were sustained with leave to amend. One of the bases for the demurrers was the single satisfaction rule, as defendants contended that plaintiff had recovered all to which she was entitled from her former business partner in the previous arbitration award, and was precluded from recovery against the instant defendants. Plaintiff attempted to file a form changing the name of the plaintiff from Lisa Marie to Marie Music Group LLC, and then filed an attempted first amended complaint under the new name.

Defendants, acting together and joining each other's motions, filed ex parte application for dismissal for failing to file a timely amended complaint by the named plaintiff, Lisa Marie. They contended the new plaintiff name change was improper.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Marie asserted that she should be permitted to substitute a new plaintiff's name.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defense claimed that Marie could not use a court form to alter the plaintiff's name amid litigation.

Result

The trial court granted the defendants' ex parte application for dismissal on Jan. 4, 2008. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was summarily denied on Oct. 8, 2008.

Other Information

According to defense counsel, the case went up seven times to the Court of Appeal, and went through two trial court initial orders granting reconsideration of dismissal with prejudice, before the eventual denial of the reconsideration motion on Oct. 8, 2008. The defendants' ex parte application for dismissal was initially presented to the Hon. David L. Minning in Department 61 because the trial judge assigned from Department 38 was absent. At a hearing on Jan. 4, 2008, the application to dismiss was granted, resulting in dismissal of the entire action with prejudice. On Jan. 8, 2008, plaintiff filed an ex parte application for reconsideration, which was sent to the Department 38 judge, even though the Department 38 judge was not the same judge that heard the dismissal motion. Although counsel to the defendants objected, the judge summarily granted plaintiff's ex parte application for reconsideration and vacated the dismissal order of Judge Minning. Defendants petitioned the Court of Appeals for a peremptory writ of mandate, yielding an appellate court order vacating the Department 38 granting of the reconsideration as improper, setting forth parameters and established facts, and remanding the matter back to Judge Minning consistent with the written decision. However, the Department 38 judge continued to set matters for hearing in the same case, prompting defendants to re-petition the Court of Appeal for an order, which yielded a written order that the Department 38 judge not have any further contact with the matter. Thereafter, defendants' written opposition to plaintiff's reconsideration motion was presented and filed in Department 61 and oral arguments were heard. Judge Minning granted plaintiff's reconsideration motion, which prompted another return to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal issued an order vacating Judge Minning's order granting plaintiff's application for reconsideration, again with parameters and instructions to the trial court. On Oct. 8, 2008, Judge Minning summarily denied plaintiff's application for reconsideration, leaving the Jan. 4, 2008 dismissal of the action with prejudice intact. Plaintiff filed a new complaint naming Marie Music Group LLC as the plaintiff, and naming the same defendants and one new defendant (case number BC391071). Defendants demurred and settlement discussions ensued, with plaintiff demanding $75,000 and the defense offering $25,000, which was where the settlement negotiations had started before the filing of the first case. Plaintiff accepted a settlement of $40,000.