Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03201/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03201-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CANAL PROPERTIES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALLIANT TAX CREDIT V, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-3201 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE

PLEADINGS

Defendants have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion is scheduled for a

hearing on May 18, 2007. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter is

appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth

below, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion.

BACKGROUND

In the prior case between the parties, Canal Properties LLC v. Alliant Tax Credit V, C 02-1871

SI (“Canal I”), a jury trial was held, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Alliant on September 8,

2004. The Court entered an amended judgment in favor of Alliant on February 2, 2005. Plaintiff

appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

This action, “Canal II,” was filed on August 5, 2004. On June 28, 2005, this Court stayed Canal

II pending resolution of the appeal in Canal I. Defendants’ then-pending motion for judgment on the

pleadings in Canal II was denied without prejudice to renewal after decision on the appeal of Canal I.

On March 13, 2006, while the appeal in Canal I was still pending, the Court granted the motion

filed by plaintiff’s then counsel, Meis & Alexander, for an order permitting their withdrawal as counsel.

Case 3:04-cv-03201-SI Document 51 Filed 05/15/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The order allowing withdrawal was effective on April 12, 2006, or when new counsel substituted in for

Canal, whichever date was earlier. No new counsel was substituted, although the order specifically

advised Mr. Andrew Wiecks, managing partner of Canal, that Canal could not appear in this Court

without counsel and that, if Canal did not retain new counsel, Canal would be unable to oppose any

motions. 

Approximately a year later, the appeal in Canal I was completed and the judgment was affirmed.

Hence, on March 14, 2007, this Court ordered a briefing schedule for defendants’ renewed motion for

judgment on the pleadings. As the docket did not reflect the appearance of new counsel for Canal in

this action, Mr. Wiecks was again reminded that Canal cannot appear in this Court without counsel.

According to the March 14, 2007 order, Canal’s response to the renewed motion for judgment

on the pleadings was due April 13, 2007. It was not filed. Instead, on April 12, 2007, Mr. Wiecks sent

a letter to the Court, received on April 16, 2007, stating that “Canal Properties LLC would like to

request an extension of time to seek counsel” and requesting a 60 day extension. No explanation was

offered for the one-year plus delay in seeking counsel, nor were any efforts to find counsel alluded to.

By order filed April 23, 2007, the Court denied plaintiff’s request, finding that plaintiff had not even

attempted to make a showing of good cause for the delay. The Court did, however, adjust the briefing

schedule, and instructed plaintiff to file an opposition, through counsel, by May 4, 2007. 

Plaintiff did not file an opposition by May 4, 2007. Instead, on April 27, 2007, Mr. Wiecks filed

a letter with the Court stating that he has had difficulty finding a lawyer. Mr. Wiecks also stated that

he believes that Canal II cannot move forward without first resolving Canal’s Rule 60(b) motion for

“relief from judgment” in Canal I. Plaintiff filed that Rule 60(b) motion in July 2005, while the appeal

was pending. By order filed August 25, 2005, the Court declined to entertain plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)

motion because the appeal had divested this Court of jurisdiction over Canal I. 

DISCUSSION

Defendants seek judgment on the pleadings in Canal II on the ground that all of the claims in

this case are barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel based on the judgment entered in Canal I. 

“Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit

Case 3:04-cv-03201-SI Document 51 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 On the eve of trial in Canal I, plaintiff sought leave to amend the complaint. The Court denied

plaintiff’s motion to amend on the grounds that it was untimely and would prejudice Alliant. See July

13, 2004 order in 02-1871 SI. 

3

between the same parties or parties in privity with them. Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion,

precludes relitigation of issues argued and decided in prior proceedings.” Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto

Co., 28 Cal. 4th 888, 896 (2002) (internal citation and quotations omitted). “Under the doctrine of res

judicata, if a plaintiff prevails in an action, the cause is merged into the judgment and may not be

asserted in a subsequent lawsuit; a judgment for the defendant serves as a bar to further litigation of the

same cause of action.” Id. at 897.

The Court finds that Canal II is barred under both res judicata and collateral estoppel.

Throughout the litigation of both cases, plaintiff has repeatedly acknowledged that Canal II is based on

the same facts and conduct as Canal I; indeed, the complaint in Canal II contains the allegations from

the proposed first amended complaint in Canal I.

1

 Both cases involve the same parties, and arise out

of Alliant’s removal of Canal from the parties’ partnership. In Canal I, plaintiff alleged claims for

declaratory relief, specific performance, breach of contract, and injunction; in Canal II, plaintiff alleges

claims for dissolution of partnership, accounting and injunction, rescission, breach of fiduciary duty,

breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and constructive trust. The Court’s amended

judgment in favor of Alliant in Canal I was affirmed on appeal, and thus is a final judgment on the

merits.

Plaintiff asserts that Canal II cannot be resolved without first addressing plaintiff’s Rule 60

motion in Canal I. This contention lacks merit. As an initial matter, the Court notes that there is no

Rule 60(b) motion pending, as the Court declined to entertain such a motion while Canal I was on

appeal. Even if plaintiff filed another Rule 60(b) motion in Canal I – which plaintiff has not done and

cannot do unless and until plaintiff obtains counsel – that motion would not affect the finality of the

judgment in Canal I. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Moreover, in light of the fact that the Ninth Circuit has

affirmed this Court’s amended judgment in Canal I, the Court is highly skeptical that a Rule 60(b)

motion would be either procedurally proper, or that it would have substantive merit.

Finally, the Court is compelled to address plaintiff’s continuing failure to secure representation.

Case 3:04-cv-03201-SI Document 51 Filed 05/15/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

As discussed above, the Court has repeatedly informed plaintiff that it must retain counsel in order to

appear in this case and to oppose any motions. This case has been pending for almost three years, and

the Court will not further delay the resolution of this case. Mr. Wiecks’ April 27, 2007 letter asserts that

Canal has been unsuccessful in its efforts to secure representation. The Court finds it unsurprising that

plaintiff has had difficulty retaining counsel because plaintiff’s current claims lack merit; even if the

Court granted a further continuance of proceedings in this case in order to allow plaintiff additional time

to locate counsel, the Court does not believe plaintiff’s efforts would be successful. 

For the foregoing reasons and good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendants’ motion

for judgment on the pleadings. (Docket No. 40).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03201-SI Document 51 Filed 05/15/07 Page 4 of 4