Castro

Castro v. Higaki

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1316·31 Cal. App. 4th 350·37 Cal. Rptr. 2d 84·95 Daily Journal DAR 325·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 207
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 6, 1994A062161California3,011 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kline, J.

Introduction

Appellant Pamela Castro appeals from judgments of the San Francisco Superior Court dismissing her action against respondents. She contends the trial court erred in sustaining respondent Paul Higaki’s demurrer on the ground the action was precluded by res judicata. She claims that the issue determined in the previous action is not the same as the issue presented in the current action and that a statutory amendment now frees her from the previous judgment. We disagree and shall affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

Appellant filed a personal injury action on August 24, 1987, against Peter Pilaski for injuries sustained by her in a bombing. (Castro v. Pilaski) Pilaski was convicted of masterminding the bombing on December 23, 1987, and sentenced to federal prison. Respondent Higaki served as assistant defense counsel to Pilaski in his criminal trial. On March 30, 1989, respondent firm Morris & Massino (which later became respondent Morris, Taylor, Hays & Higaki) became counsel of record for Pilaski in the personal injury case. The personal injury case resulted in a judgment against Pilaski of $490,083.91 on June 3, 1991.

While the appeal in Castro v. Pilaski…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.