Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV24757, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24757    Hearing Date: August 9, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On August 1, 2022, Plaintiff Kim Dunn initiated this action arising from an incident where Plaintiff alleges she was harassed and unlawfully detained while trying to shop at a CVS store. Plaintiff alleges she was discriminated against because she is African-American. The operative First Amended Complaint, filed December 28, 2022, asserts (1) violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act, (2) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and (3) false imprisonment against Defendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc., CVS Health, Inc., Garfield Beach CVS, LLC, and Kenneth Weis. 

            Plaintiff had previously filed a lawsuit based on the same facts in San Bernardino Superior Court. Defendants had the case removed to federal court, after which the San Bernardino Superior Court dismissed the action with prejudice. On April 10, 2023, Defendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and Garfield Beach CVS, LLC filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the dismissal with prejudice operates as res judicata to the current claims. Although Plaintiff pointed out that the San Bernardino Superior Court had no authority to dismiss the case because it was pending in federal court at the time, this Court could not overrule the order of another superior court. Accordingly, the dismissal operated as res judicata, and the Court granted Defendants’ MJOP on May 15, 2023.

On June 27, 2023, the San Bernardino Superior Court set aside the dismissal as being in excess of the court’s jurisdiction. Given that the case is no longer dismissed, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on the MJOP.

Plaintiff filed the reconsideration motion on July 13, 2023. Defendants filed their opposition on July 27, 2023. Plaintiff replied on August 2, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD

“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(a).)

Additionally, “the trial court retains the inherent authority to change its decision at any time prior to the entry of judgment.” (Darling v. Kritt (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1148, 1156.) “[S]ection 1008 does not govern the court's ability, on its own motion, to reevaluate its own interim rulings.” (Ibid.) “[T]he only requirement of the court is that it exercise ‘due consideration’ before modifying, amending, or revoking its prior orders.” (Id. at p. 1157.)

DISCUSSION

“Under the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, when two California superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties involved in litigation, the first to assume jurisdiction has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties involved until such time as all necessarily related matters have been resolved. The rule is based upon the public policies of avoiding conflicts that might arise between courts if they were free to make contradictory decisions or awards relating to the same controversy, and preventing vexatious litigation and multiplicity of suits.” (People ex rel. Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 760, 769-70.)

Because the San Bernardino Superior Court set aside its order of dismissal, the case has resumed in that Court. There is a trial setting conference scheduled for January 29, 2024 and a status conference scheduled for July 1, 2024 in the San Bernardino case. (Seals Decl., Ex. 2; Jones Decl., Ex. 7.) There cannot be two cases pending in different superior courts regarding the same claims. The action in San Bernardino was filed first. Therefore, the San Bernardino Superior Court has exclusive concurrent jurisdiction over the matter. (See Garamendi, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at pp. 769-70.) Accordingly, Defendants’ MJOP remains properly granted.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.