Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV19342, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19342    Hearing Date: November 3, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On August 14, 2023, Plaintiff Ester Fishman filed this quiet title action against Defendant Marcus Fishman and all persons claiming any right in the subject property. Plaintiff and Defendant were married in 2013 and separated in 2016. Plaintiff alleges that during the parties’ relationship, Defendant was abusive and controlling. As a result, Plaintiff alleges that under Defendant’s undue influence and coercion, Plaintiff granted title of the two subject properties to both herself and Defendant even though Plaintiff obtained the properties prior to marriage. Plaintiff filed this action to claim legal title to the subject properties.

            On September 28, 2023, Defendant filed the instant demurrer for abatement on the grounds that there is a pending divorce case between the parties relating to the subject properties. Plaintiff filed her opposition on October 23, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Ibid.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.) A complaint will survive demurrer if it sufficiently apprises the defendant of the issues, and specificity is not required where discovery will clarify the ambiguities. (See Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 608.) All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the complaint. (Kruss v. Booth (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 699, 713.)

MEET AND CONFER

Before filing a demurrer or a motion to strike, the demurring or moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to or the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, 435.5.) The Court notes that Defendant has not complied with the meet and confer requirement. (See Fishman Decl.) However, this is not a reason for overruling a demurrer. (Id., § 430.41(a)(4).) Therefore, the Court will proceed on the merits.  

DISCUSSION

I. Abatement

A demurrer lies where “[t]here is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(c).) “In such a case, the defendant must show that the parties, cause of action, and issues are identical, and the same evidence would support the judgment in each case.” (California Union Ins. Co. v. Trinity River Land Co. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 104, 108.) “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.)

            Here, Defendant points out that the parties are currently involved in a divorce case, Fishman v. Fishman (BD645333). Defendant argues that the pending divorce case affects the parties’ property rights and thereby overlaps with issues involved in this case. Defendant requests an abatement to avoid duplication.

            However, the statute governing quiet title actions provides that “[t]he remedy provided in this chapter is cumulative and not exclusive of any other remedy, form or right of action, or proceeding provided by law for establishing or quieting title to property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 760.030(a).) “In an action or proceeding in which establishing or quieting title to property is in issue the court in its discretion may, upon motion of any party, require that the issue be resolved pursuant to the provisions of this chapter to the extent practicable.” (Id., subd. (b).) The family court “deferred the issues of the ownership, value and allocation of two parcels of property in dispute between the parties to the existing civil action between the parties.” (Plntf.’s RJN, Ex. 1 at 2:10-11; Ex. 2 at 32:20-21.) Therefore, the conditions for abatement are not met because the issues are not identical between the two cases.

II. Exclusive Concurrent Jurisdiction

“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, 769-770.)

“[T]he rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction does not require absolute identity of parties, causes of action or remedies sought in the initial and subsequent actions.” (Garamendi, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at p. 770.) “Moreover, the remedies sought in the separate actions need not be precisely the same so long as the court exercising original jurisdiction has the power to litigate all the issues and grant all the relief to which any of the parties might be entitled under the pleadings.” (Ibid.)

            For the same reasons discussed above, exclusive concurrent jurisdiction does not apply. There is no risk of “contradictory decisions or awards relating to the same controversy” because the issue of ownership of the two properties was expressly removed from the divorce case. The family court also does not have “the power to litigate all the issues and grant all the relief to which any of the parties might be entitled” because that court is expressly not resolving the property issue.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.