Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV27507, Date: 2024-05-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV27507    Hearing Date: May 28, 2024    Dept: 20

Ruling:                                    The hearing on the demurrer is continued to July 9, 2024, 2024, pending the outcome of the hearing set in LASC Case No. 23STCP04028.

                                                Defendant County of Los Angeles to give notice and file notice of this ruling with Department 82.

DISCUSSION

The Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff petitioned for relief from the Government Claims Act’s claims presentation requirements in a different proceeding. (See D.RJN Exh. E.) The Court on its own motion now takes judicial notice of the entire record of that proceeding, and notes that a dispositive hearing has been set for June 28, 2024. (See 05-08-2024 Minute Order, LASC Case No. 23STCP04028.) (The individual defendants have been dismissed with prejudice from Plaintiff’s petition.)

Defendants argue Plaintiff’s petition for relief qualifies as “another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action” for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(c).

“A plea in abatement pursuant to section 430.10, subdivision (c), may be made by demurrer or answer when there is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.” (Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 787 (“Plant Insulation”).) “Abatement . . . is recognized to prevent a multiplicity of suits and unnecessary vexatious litigation. (Hamm v. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal Co. (1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 47, 56.)

Abatement “is based in part upon the practical supposition that the first suit is effective and affords an ample remedy to the party and hence that the second action is unnecessary and vexatious.” (Hilton v. Reed (1941) 46 Cal.App.2d 449, 454.) Thus, “[a]batement is not appropriate where the first action cannot afford the relief sought in the second.” (Plant Insulation, supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at p. 787.) “It must also be borne in mind that the plea of another action pending is in its nature a dilatory plea, and is not favored.” (Hilton v. Reed, supra, 46 Cal.App.2d at p. 454.)

Plaintiff’s petition for relief from the GCA does not seek the same relief as his suit here. The petition cannot achieve the same relief he seeks in this action. Abatement is improper here, but a continuance is warranted.

CONCLUSION

The hearing on the demurrer is continued to July 9, 2024, 2024, pending the outcome of the hearing set in LASC Case No. 23STCP04028.

  Defendant County of Los Angeles to give notice and file notice of this ruling with Department 82.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.