Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 21NWCV00291, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00291    Hearing Date: March 20, 2024    Dept: C

PADILLA v. MENDOZA, ET AL.

CASE NO.:  21NWCV00291

HEARING: 3/20/24 @ 10:30 AM

#1

TENTATIVE RULING

I.             Plaintiff Marcel P. Padilla’s motion to lift stay is DENIED. 

II.            Defendants’ motion for nonstatutory dismissal is DENIED.

Plaintiff to give NOTICE.

This is a breach of contract action. On January 18, 2023, the Court stayed the instant action pending institution and final determination of this action in the alternative forum of Mexico. Defendant Hermenegildo Espinoza Mendoza waived any statute of limitations defense in this action.

Legal Standard

A judge has discretion to stay its case pending the outcome of a foreign action. (Dial 800 v. Fesbinder (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 32, 47.)

Discussion

1.    Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay

Plaintiff Marcel P. Padilla argues that this action cannot be pursued in Mexico due to current Mexican laws, which do not provide adequate remedies for Plaintiff.  

In opposition, Defendants Hermenegildo Espinoza Mendoza, Jose Luis Espinoza, and Alejandra Romero Oceguera argue that Plaintiff has not shown that he has exhausted his legal remedies available in Mexico.

Plaintiff advances the declaration of his counsel, who states, “Mexican courts do not provide remedies for some of Plaintiff’s causes of action.” (Davis Decl., ¶ 4.) However, Plaintiff’s counsel does not state what remedies are available and why they are inadequate.  Plaintiff states that Mexico does not acknowledge the rights of litigants to bring any legal action past the date of the cases’ maturity. (Mot, pg. 5, lines 21-22.) However, Plaintiff does not explain what affect, if any, this rule has on Plaintiff’s claims. 

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a change in circumstances following this Court’s January 26, 2022 order granting, in part, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the action based on inconvenient forum.  The Court’s January 26, 2022 order stated: “[t]he other forum's law need not be as favorable to plaintiff as local law. (Stangvik v. Shiley, Inc., supra, 54 Cal.3d at 754 -- advantages of California procedural or substantive law 'cannot be considered as a factor'.) The alternative forum's law is irrelevant unless the remedy provided is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no remedy at all. (Stangvik v. Shiley, Inc., supra, 54 Cal.3d at 764.) The “no remedy at all” exception applies only in rare circumstances, “such as where the alternative forum is a foreign country whose courts are ruled by a dictatorship, so that there is no independent judiciary or due process of law.” (Shiley, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1992) 4 CA4th 126, 133134.)” (Minute Order, January 26, 2022.) Once again, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the remedy available in Mexico “is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no remedy at all.” This is a high bar – one that Plaintiff still does not overcome. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay is DENIED. 

2.    Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Defendants move for nonstatutory dismissal on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to diligently prosecute this action nor applied for a lift of stay of the action.

The Court has inherent authority to dismissal an action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.150.)

Plaintiff has applied for a lift of stay of the instant action for California to prosecute it.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.