Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV01355, Date: 2023-11-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV01355    Hearing Date: November 17, 2023    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff brought suit for partition by sale of real property on March 29, 2023.  Defendant Heidi Marie Brown (“Defendant”) moves to stay this case, pending the outcome of a dissolution proceeding in Oregon. 

Plaintiff Arnaud Paris (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion and Defendant replies. 

ANALYSIS

Untimely Opposition

Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b) provides, “All papers opposing a motion […] shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days, and all reply papers at least five court days before the hearing.”  The court has discretion whether to consider late-filed papers.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d).)  

Here, the hearing is scheduled for November 17, 2023, and November 10, 2023 is a court holiday.  Therefore, the opposition papers were due by November 3 and the reply due November 9.  Plaintiff apparently served the opposition brief on Defendant late on the night of November 6 and filed it with the Court on November 8.  Defendant timely filed the reply on November 9.

            Plaintiff has not provided an explanation for the delay, although the Court notes that Plaintiff is proceeding in pro per.  “Providing access to justice for self-represented litigants is a priority for California courts.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 10.960(b).)

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in pro per and because Defendant does not appear to have been prejudiced, by virtue of the fact that Defendant still managed to timely file the Reply brief, in the interest of justice, the Court exercises its discretion and considers the late-filed opposition.

Stay

The court has inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency. (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.)  Trial judges have inherent powers to manage and fashion procedures to control litigation to ensure the orderly administration of justice. (Cottle v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1376-1379.)

“When an action is brought in a court of this state 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 sound discretion of the trial court.” (Farmland Irr. Co. v. Dopplmaier (1957) 48 Cal.2d 208, 215.) “In exercising its discretion the court should consider the importance of discouraging multiple litigation designed solely to harass an adverse party, and of avoiding unseemly conflicts with the courts of other jurisdictions.” (Ibid.) “It should also consider whether the rights of the parties can best be determined by the court of the other jurisdiction because of the nature of the subject matter, the availability of witnesses, or the stage to which the proceedings in the other court have already advanced.” (Ibid.)

Here, Defendant requests this action be stayed pending the resolution of dissolution proceedings underway in Oregon in In the Matter of Heidi Marie Brown and Arnaud Paris (Case No. 22DR17285.)  Defendant contends that the division of the real property at issue in this partition action is an issue to be decided in the Oregon action, which is set for trial on November 29.  (Murdoch Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5; Exh A, p. 8.) 

Moreover, the Oregon action was filed by Defendant against Plaintiff on October 7, 2022.  (Murdoch Decl. ¶ 2; Exh. A.)  The instant action filed by Plaintiff against Defendant was filed on March 29, 2023.  (See Complaint.) 

Plaintiff questions the merits and validity of the Oregon action, arguing that the dissolution proceedings are inherently inappropriate because Plaintiff and Defendant were never married.  Plaintiff also expresses disagreement with the Oregon court’s prior rulings, and has therefore initiated the instant action because he “does not wish to put this in the hands of the Oregon court.”  (Opp. at p. 3.)  Moreover, Plaintiff tacitly concedes that he commenced the instant action in an attempt to litigate an issue already pending before another tribunal:  “And since Oregon should not be adjudicating even custody (which was previously decided in France), there was no domestic partnership, and the land is in California, there is no reason why the Oregon court should have jurisdiction over any issue between the parties.”  (Opp. at p. 3.)

Although the subject real property is located in California, the risk of inconsistent rulings regarding the parties’ rights to that property is high, especially given that the subject real property is at issue in the pending Oregon action which was filed first.  As such, the Court determines that the California action should be stayed pending the resolution of the Oregon action. [1]

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to stay the action pending resolution of  In the Matter of Heidi Marie Brown and Arnaud Paris (Case No. 22DR17285). 

            Further, the Court advances and vacates the Case Management Conference set on November 28, 2023, and sets a Status Conference re In the Matter of Heidi Marie Brown and Arnaud Paris (Case No. 22DR17285) on February 22, 2024 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 207.  The parties shall file a Joint Status Report regarding the status of In the Matter of Heidi Marie Brown and Arnaud Paris (Case No. 22DR17285) on or before February 15, 2024. 

            Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service regarding the same.   

DATED: November 17, 2023                                                 ___________________________

Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court