Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV03061, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03061    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO STAY OR ABATE

            On June 10, 2022, Enos Raffi and Marie Ann Agnes Raffi filed an asbestos case in Illinois.  On September 21, 2022, Plaintiffs added Defendant American International Industries in the second amended complaint in Illinois.  On October 6, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in the Illinois case, and on January 31 2023, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Defendant from the Illinois action. 

            On February 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant alleging Plaintiff Enos Raffi developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos.  On March 24, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to stay and/or abate this case.  Defendant argues “Plaintiffs may not split a single cause of action and make it the basis for separate suits.”  (Motion at p. 6.)

Where an action is brought in a California court involving the same parties and the same subject matter as an action already pending in a court of another jurisdiction, a stay of the California proceedings is not a matter of right, but within the trial court's discretion.  (Farmland Irrigation Co. v. Dopplmaier (1957) 308 P.2d 732, 736.)  The rule against splitting a cause of action is based on the sound and established legal principles of res judicata and abatement. (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1146; Grisham v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2007) 40 Ca1.4th 623, 642.)  “The rule against splitting a cause of action is based upon two reasons: (1) That the defendant should be protected against vexatious litigation; and (2) that it is against public policy to permit litigants to consume the time of the courts by relitigating matters already judicially determined, or by asserting claims which properly should have been settled in some prior action.”  (Wulfjen v. Dolton (1944) 24 Cal.2d 891, 894-895.)

Plaintiffs are not splitting a cause of action by pursing this case against Defendant in California.  Defendant is not a party in the Illinois case because Defendant contends there is no jurisdiction over it in Illinois and therefore Plaintiffs dismissed Defendant from that case.    Because Plaintiffs are not seeking to litigate against Defendant in two different actions, there is no vexatious litigation, and Plaintiffs are not relitigating matters determined or settled in a prior action.  There is no danger of conflicting decisions against Defendant in the two jurisdictions.  Because there is only one case against Defendant, there is only one potential decision against Defendant.

Defendant’s Proposition 51 argument is not convincing.  Under Defendant’s reasoning, a plaintiff should only sue one defendant at a time, because if plaintiff prevails against the first defendant, it will be made whole without suing any other defendants.  Also, this argument assumes without evidence that Plaintiffs will be able to collect in full against the defendants in the Illinois action.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

            The moving party is to give notice.