Source: http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50k/legal/a7/3632.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:36:38+00:00

Document:
1 Church of Scientology International v. Armstrong, Case No. 152229.
justice. Armstrong's appeal of the judgment was dismissed. Accordingly, Plaintiff hereby moves for an order precluding the introduction of all evidence by Armstrong on the ground that Armstrong's Answer admits the breaches and that Armstrong is collaterally estopped to raise the asserted affirmative defenses.
In contrast to the usual motion in limine, which seeks to keep particular items of evidence from a jury, an objection to all evidence is essentially the same as a general demurrer or motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking to end the trial without the introduction of evidence. Such an objection is properly sustained where even if the plaintiff's allegations were proven, they would not establish a cause of action. Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp., 53 Cal.App.4th 15, 26 (1987), or, as here, where defendant's answer is unable to establish a defense to plaintiff's cause of action. Carlson v. Lindauer, 119 Cal.App.2d 292, 301 (1953); Los Angeles v. California Towel & Linen Supply Co. 217 Cal.App.3d 410, 416, 31 Cal.Rptr. 832 (1963). This procedure "may [also] be viewed as the functional equivalent of an order sustaining a demurrer to the evidence, or non-suit." Id. at p. 27.
Cal.App.4th at pp. 27-28. See also, Mechanical Contractors Association of Northern California v. Greater Bay Area Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors, 66 Cal.App.4th 672, (1998); Witkin, supra.
This is similar to the situation in Knoff v. San Francisco, 1 Cal. App. 3d 184 (1969), in which the trial court properly entered judgment because the answer raised only immaterial factual issues and questions of law. Here, the Answer raises no factual issues. It admits the commission of the breaches of contract alleged in the Complaint, and raises forty four affirmative defenses, identical to those raised in the Prior Action, save for the addition of a defense based on the Thirteenth Amendment.
2 Plaintiff will move forward at trial on breaches 1-131 which were the subject of the Order of Contempt dated July 31, 2001. Plaintiffs Exhibit 11.
Armstrong in contempt for the 131 breaches upon which Plaintiff seeks to recover here. Plaintiff's Exhibit 11, ¶ 2 at pg. 2, ln. 16.
As discussed more fully in PLAINTIFF CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE ON ARMSTRONG'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, Armstrong is collaterally estopped to raise these defenses as a matter of law. See, Torrey Pines Bank v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 216 Cal. App. 3d 813, 821 (1989) [Dismissal with prejudice of action bars assertion of affirmative defenses based on identical facts.]. In Torrey Pines, the prior action ended with a dismissal with prejudice, which the Court held sufficient. Here, the prior action ended in a final judgment on the merits after entry of orders granting summary judgment and imposing a permanent injunction. Armstrong's appeal was dismissed. See also, Hamilton v. Carpenter, 15 Cal. 2d 130 (1940). Gates v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 178 Cal. App. 3d 301, 308 (1986) ["...if the second action involves a right, title or issue as to which the judgment in the first action is a conclusive adjudication, the estoppel so far as that right, title or issue is concerned must likewise extend to every matter which was or might have been urged to sustain or defeat the determination actually made."].
The facts alleged in Armstrong's Answer, even if proven, would not constitute a defense to the Complaint. The motion should be granted.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.