Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 21NWCV00291, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00291    Hearing Date: November 14, 2024    Dept: C

PADILLA v. MENDOZA

CASE NO.:  21NWCV00291

HEARING:  11/14/24

#8

Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Terminate Stay of Action is GRANTED. The stay is LIFTED. This action is returned to active civil docket. The Court sets a Case Management Conference for Thursday, December 19, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-F.

Moving Party to give notice.

Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. (Cal. Ev. Code §452.)

BACKGROUND

This action concerning breach of contract was filed by Plaintiff MARCEL P. PADILLA (“Plaintiff”) against Defendants HERMENEGILDO ESPINOZA MENDOZA; JOSE LUIS ESPINOZA MENDOZA; and ALEJANDRA ROMERO OCEGUERA (collectively “Defendants”) on May 10, 2021. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that Defendants breached an oral contract entered in the City of Downey, California. Hermenegildo is Plaintiff’s half-brother. Jose is Hermenegildo’s father. Alejandra is Hermenegildo’s wife and Plaintiff’s sister-in-law. In February 2008, Plaintiff became seriously ill. In the spring of 2009, Hermenegildo and Jose approached Plaintiff in Downey, California, to propose that Hermenegildo would manage Plaintiff’s businesses and properties in Mexico. They verbally agreed to do the following:

·       Hermenegildo would manage Plaintiff’s 600-acre ranch located in the municipality of Tocumbo in Michoacan, Mexico and known as the Hacienda Suyapa de los Mendoza (“Los Mendoza”);

·       Hermenegildo would find a buyer for a piece of real property, known as “El Encinal”, (also located in the municipality of Tocumbo), and arrange for the sale of El Encinal in the amount of $300,000.00 US Dollars;

·       Hermenegildo, as a trustee of the Estate of Plaintiff's mother Matilde Mendoza Dias, would distribute certain inheritance and real properties.

·       Plaintiff's personal property, which Plaintiff valued at approximately $200,000.00 US Dollars, was to be kept safe by Hermenegildo until the Plaintiff had recovered from his illness.

·       Any profits generated by any of Plaintiff's properties and businesses managed by Hermenegildo, were to be turned over to Plaintiff at such time that Plaintiff had recovered from his illness.

·       Jose agreed to accept financial responsibility for Hermenegildo's actions should Hermenegildo's actions cause financial harm to Plaintiff.

·       In return for Hermenegildo and Jose fulfilling their obligations, Plaintiff would pay Hermenegildo and Jose, altogether, a total of fifty (50%) percent of the profits generated from the businesses and property managed by Hermenegildo as stated above.

·       How Hermenegildo and Jose intended to divide the 50% profit they would receive would be determined amongst themselves.

Plaintiff alleges Defendants breached the contract by failing to disclose profits earned from the businesses, fraudulently transferring the real properties, and disposing of Plaintiff’s personal property.

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following causes of action:

(1) Breach of Contract;

(2) Promissory Estoppel;

(3) Fraud and Deceit Intentional Misrepresentation;

(4)  

(5) Unjust Enrichment;

(6) Conversion;

(7) Conspiracy to Commit Fraud;

(8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;

(9) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

On October 1, 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss this lawsuit on the ground of inconvenient forum pursuant to CCP §418.10. Defendants argued that the matter should be heard in Mexico because a probate case was already pending there and all matters involving the properties took place there. In its ruling dated January 26, 2022, the Court found, among other things, that there was no evidence that alternative forum (Mexico) will not provide a remedy. The Court stayed the instant action pending institution and final determination of an action in Mexico.

On July 26, 2023, the Court held a status conference, and Plaintiff’s counsel stated that the court in Mexico dismissed Plaintiff’s lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction. Counsel for Defendant was unable to confirm this. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a motion to lift stay.

On February 1, 2024, Defendants filed a motion for nonstatutory dismissal of the action for delay in prosecution.

On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to lift stay, arguing that the Mexican laws do not provide remedies for Plaintiff.

On March 20, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to lift stay and Defendants’ motion for dismissal. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause on today’s date why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.

On August 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion to Terminate Stay. Plaintiff maintains that the stay should be terminated because he has no remedy in Mexico and the parties are residents of California.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP §430.10(a) states: “When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.”

The 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.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff asserts that in 2023, he hired a Mexican attorney, Claudia Alejandra Verduzco Moreno, who filed a complaint on June 22, 2023 in the civil tribunal of Zamora, Michoacan, Mexico. On June 27, 2023, the civil tribunal ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over the matter because the defendants were not domiciled in the state of Michoacan, Mexico. The ruling, translated from Spanish to English, states, “this court is incompetent to hear it, since when claiming an action of a personal nature, it must be the judge of the debtor’s domicile the competent to hear said demand, since this is established by Article 165 of the civil procedure code of the state …” (Davis Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff also contends that all parties reside in California, with Plaintiff residing in Los Angeles and Defendants residing in Stockton. Based thereon, the Court determines that Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that he has no legal remedy in Mexico for his claims, and that California is the proper forum.

In Opposition, Defendants argue that California Courts do not have a vested interest in resolving a Mexican estate case, and that Plaintiff has not exhausted his legal remedies available in Mexico.

Here, the crux of Plaintiff’s action is for breach of contract concerning the management of properties located in Mexico. This action does not concern the distribution of Mexican properties. Where the oral agreement giving rise to Plaintiff’s was entered into in the City of Downey, California, and the parties are residents of California, this Court finds that jurisdiction is proper here. 

The Motion is GRANTED.