Judge: Nathan R. Scott, Case: Steadfast Ins. Co. v. William Lyon Homes, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Management Conference

The CMC is continued to 5/9/2024 at 2 pm.

Motion for Stay

Plaintiff Steadfast Insurance Company’s motion to stay is granted.

This litigation is stayed pending final judgment in William Lyon Inc. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., #2018-01027345 (Lyon I). 

A status conference is set for 5/9/2024 at 2 pm.  All parties shall file short status reports no later than 5/2/2024.

As defendant correctly notes, a plea in abatement is inapplicable as the claims in the two cases are not identical.  (See People ex rel. Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 760, 770; Leadford v. Leadford (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 571, 574.)

But plaintiff has shown the Lyon I court has exclusive concurrent jurisdiction over these parties and issues.

The exclusive concurrent jurisdiction doctrine “has been interpreted and applied more expansively than the plea in abatement.”  (Shaw v. Superior Court (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 245, 256, cleaned up.)  “Unlike the statutory plea of abatement, the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction does not require absolute identity of parties, causes of action or remedies sought in the initial and subsequent actions.”  (Ibid.)

Lyon I is already considering the construction and application of the self-insured retention provision, key issues in this case.  (See RFJN Exs. 1-3; see also Opp. at p. 3 [“WLHI does not dispute that the SIR Satisfaction Issue and the SIR Erosion Issue will be addressed in the Appellate Action nor does it dispute that determination of those two issues will have a direct impact on this action”].)

While defendants assert a defense in this case that is not at issue in Lyon I, “[e]xclusive concurrent jurisdiction is a judicial rule of policy which mandates that the second action be stayed upon the filing of an appropriate pleading.”  (People ex rel. Garamendi, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at p. 774.)

Technical doctrines aside, it serves judicial economy to get a determination on the key SIR issues before moving forward with any aspect of this case.  (See, e.g.,

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. AmerisourceBergen Corporation (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1, 13-14 [inherent power to stay case; efficient to allow bellweather case to proceed first].)

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted.  (See Evid. Code, §452, subds. (d), (h).)

Plaintiff shall give notice.