Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV12640, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV12640    Hearing Date: November 8, 2024    Dept: 52

Defendant EIG Management’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint

            Defendant EIG Management dba Ecostar Remodeling & Construction (EIG) demurs to the entire first amended complaint by plaintiffs Pablo Ruiz Roja and Long Nguyen.

Request for Judicial Notice

            Defendant requests judicial notice of three exhibits: (A) a complaint filed by EIG against Roja and Nguyen in San Bernardino Superior Court, case No. CIVSB2412084, (B) a notice of related case filed in that action, and (C) the notice of related case filed in this action.  The exhibits are court records subject to judicial notice of their existence and legal effects.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

Special Demurrer

            Defendant specially demurs to plaintiffs’ first amended complaint on the grounds that “[t]here is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (c).)  “The pendency of another earlier action growing out of the same transaction and between the same parties is a ground for abatement of the second action.”  (Leadford v. Leadford (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 571, 574.)  Courts have applied this rule when both actions arise out of the same events, even if the plaintiff in one action is the defendant in the other.  (See California Union Ins. Co. v. Trinity River Land Co. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 104, 107-109.)  The action in San Bernardino, case No. CIVSB2412084 (RJN, Ex. A), is between the same parties, but with the plaintiffs and defendants reversed.

            The lawsuit in San Bernardino Superior Court is on the same cause of action as the first amended complaint in this proceeding.  “The identity of two causes of action is determined by a comparison of the facts alleged which show the nature of the invasion of plaintiff’s primary right.”  (Bush v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1374, 1384.)  Causes of action are identical when either would serve as res judicata or claim preclusion of the other.  (Ibid.) 

Both actions arise out of the same transaction: a contract under which Roja and Nguyen agreed to pay EIG $23,200 for construction work.  (RJN, Ex. A, ¶¶ 3, 6-8; FAC, pp. 3-4.)  In the first action, EIG brings a cause of action for foreclosure of mechanics lien.  (RJN, Ex. A, ¶¶ 35-39.)  In this action, Roja and Nguyen bring a cause of action for declaratory relief for removal of the mechanics lien (FAC, pp. 9-10) and a cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 8416 on the basis that defendants did not “properly serv[e] the mechanics lien … , making the lien unenforceable as a matter of law” (id., pp. 10-11).  Moreover, in the first action, EIG alleges Roja and Nguyen breached the contract for construction services.  (RJN, Ex. A, ¶¶ 11-14.)  In this action, Roja and Nguyen assert EIG’s mechanics “lien is invalid” because of the “Lack of Valid Contract.”  (FAC, p. 9.)  The two lawsuits seek inconsistent relief in a dispute arising from the same events.  A judgment in either action would serve as res judicata or claim preclusion for the other.

EIG establishes the conditions required for abatement under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (c).  The court therefore must issue an interlocutory judgment of abatement until the first action is resolved.  (Leadford v. Leadford (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 571, 574; Code Civ. Proc., § 597.)

The court need not and does not reach the other grounds for defendant’s demurrer.

Disposition

            Defendant EIG Management dba Ecostar Remodeling & Construction’s demurrer to the first amended complaint by plaintiffs Pablo Ruiz Roja and Long Nguyen is sustained.  The court hereby enters an interlocutory judgment in favor of EIG Management dba Ecostar Remodeling & Construction on the first amended complaint.  This action is hereby stayed pending resolution of EIG Management dba Ecostar Remodeling & Construction, et al. v. Pablo Ruiz Roja, et al., San Bernardino Superior Court case No. CIVSB2412084.

            The court hereby vacates the hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint set for December 3, 2024.  The court hereby sets a status conference re: stay on August 8, 2025, at 8:30 a.m.