Youssef

INTRODUCTION

Gamil Youssef seeks to enforce a settlement agreement with the County of Los Angeles, his former employer. This is the second time Youssef has sued the County to enforce the same agreement. Youssef brought a first action in 2010. After a jury trial, a trial court entered a judgment against Youssef. That judgment was upheld on appeal. While the appeal was pending, Youssef brought this action. This action seeks to enforce the same provisions of the same settlement agreement at issue in the prior case.1 Below, the County invoked the doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata) and asserted that it barred further proceedings.2 The trial court agreed and sustained the County’s demurrer without leave to amend. We affirm. Youssef contends claim preclusion does not apply. He argues that his claims arise (at least in part) from facts occurring after entry of judgment in the 2010 action. Therefore, he argues, he could not have litigated those facts in the prior case and should not be prevented by the doctrine of claim preclusion from doing so now. We disagree. Youseff’s complaint here makes clear

1 We refer to this prior lawsuit as the “2010 case” or the “2010 action.” 2 …