Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 20NWCV00499 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 20NWCV00499, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20NWCV00499 Hearing Date: September 20, 2022 Dept: SEC

SOUTH GATE INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. v. CITY OF SOUTH GATE

CASE NO.: 20NWCV00499

HEARING: 9/20/22 @ 9:30 AM

TENTATIVE RULING

Cross-Defendants South Gate Investment Group, Inc. and U.S. Truck Sales, Inc.’s unopposed demurrer to AJG Realty, Inc.’s cross-complaint is SUSTAINED, and the court will issue an interlocutory judgment, STAYING the claims asserted by AJG pending the outcome of Case No. 21PSCV00343.

Moving Parties to give NOTICE, and submit the proposed interlocutory judgment.

Cross-Defendants South Gate Investment Group, Inc. (“SGIG”) and U.S. Truck Sales, Inc. (“UST”) demur to AJG’s cross-complaint on the ground that another action is pending.

This action for Quiet Title was filed by Plaintiff South Gate Investment Group, Inc. (“SGIG”) against Defendant City of South Gate (“City”). Plaintiff’s predecessor, California Truck Sales, purchased the property on September 26, 1995. In 1997, the City Supervisor informed California Truck Sales that it would be required to install a wrought-iron fence and poles along its property line. Plaintiff has paid taxes associated with this boundary and relied on City’s insistence that where the fence was installed was the proper boundary line. In October 2017, City claimed to have done a survey as to its public rights-of-way. Two years later, in August 2020, City informed Plaintiff of its intent to widen the existing sidewalk running along the border. City informed Plaintiff that it would demolish the fence and poles, and Plaintiff would be responsible for re-installing the fence and poles at what City now contends is the correct boundary line. The Complaint asserts causes of action for:

1. Quiet Title

2. Declaratory Relief

On November 6, 2020, the City of South Gate filed a Cross-Complaint alleging that SGIG installed a fence, erected poles, and electrical lines along City’s Right of Way (“ROW”) Easement. AJG was also named because it appeared that AJG purchased an interest in the real property. The First Amended Cross-Complaint asserts causes of action for:

1. Public Nuisance

2. Quiet Title

3. Interference with Easement

4. Ejectment

5. Declaratory Relief

On April 21, 2021, the court entered Judgment of dismissal as to Plaintiff’s complaint.

On March 9, 2022, AJG Realty filed a cross-complaint, naming moving Defendants, and asserting causes of action for:

1. Contractual Indemnity (v. UST)

2. Equitable Indemnity (v. SGIG and UST)

3. Contribution (v. SGIG and UST)

4. Declaratory Relief (v. UST)

ABATEMENT

CCP § 430.10(c) applies where an “earlier action growing out of the same
transaction and between the same parties is a ground for abatement of the second action.” (Leadford v. Leadford (1992), 6 Cal. App. 4th 571, 574). “Where the court determines there is another action pending raising substantially the same issues between the same parties, it is to enter the interlocutory judgment specified in [CCP] §597” (Id.) Abatement under these circumstances is considered “a matter of right,” with the trial court having no discretion “to allow the second action to proceed if it finds the first involves substantially the same controversy between the same parties.” (Id.)

The court may enter an interlocutory judgment staying trial or other issues until final determination of the action in the other court. (CCP § 597.)

The rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction is also mandatory and may be raised by demurrer. (People ex rel. Garamendi, supra at 771). “[I]t has been interpreted and applied more expansively, and therefore may apply where the narrow grounds required for a statutory plea in abatement do not exist [...] [it] does not require absolute identity of parties, causes of action or remedies sought in the initial and subsequent actions [...] the remedies sought in the separate actions need not to be precisely the same so long as the court exercising original jurisdiction has the power to litigate all the issues and grant all the relief to which any of the parties might be entitled under the pleadings[.]” (Id.)

On April 3, 2021, SGIG and UST filed an action against AJG in Case No. 21PSCV00343. On December 9, 2021, AJG filed a cross-complaint that has since been amended, asserting causes of action that relate to a “lease” entered on March 10, 2016. (FAXC, ¶ 50.)

On March 9, 2022, AJG filed a cross-complaint in this action, which also relates to the “lease” entered on March 10, 2016. (XC, ¶ 9.)

The court finds that Case No. 21PSCV00343 raises substantially the same issues between the same parties. The issues decided in Case No. 21PSCV00343 concerns enforceability of the lease and AJG’s rights as a property owner, which are issues raised in this action.

AJG has not filed any opposition to the demurrer.

Accordingly, the demurrer is SUSTAINED, and an interlocutory judgment will issue, STAYING the claims asserted by AJG pending the outcome of Case No. 21PSCV00343.