Judge Olivia Rosales, Case 21NWCV00165 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 21NWCV00165, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00165 Hearing Date: December 15, 2022 Dept: SEC

ALTAMED HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION v. DILLER SOUTHERN PARTNERSHIP

CASE NO.: 21NWCV00165 (Related to 21NWCV00348)

HEARING: 12/15/22

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant DILLER SOUTHERN PARTNERSHIP’s Demurrer to Plaintiff ALTAMED HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION’s First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED. This action (Case No. 21NWCV00165) is STAYED in abatement pending disposition of the UD action (Case No. 21NWCV00348)

Moving Party to give Notice.

On March 19, 2021, Plaintiff ALTAMED HEALTH SERVICES CORPORATION (“Altamed”) filed the instant unlimited civil breach of lease action against Defendant DILLER SOUTHERN PARTNERSHIP (“Diller”) (“civil action”) (Case No. 21NWCV00165).

On June 1, 2021, Plaintiff Diller filed the related Unlawful Detainer action (“UD action”) (Case No. 21NWCV00348). A Judgment was issued on December 21, 2021. However, the matter remains pending on appeal.

On March 22, 2022, Altamed filed the subject First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in the instant civil action. The FAC asserts the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Written Contract; (2) Violation of B&P §17200; (3) Fraud; and (4) Declaratory Relief.

Diller now generally and specially demurs to the FAC in the civil action.

Diller argues that Altamed’s first, second, and fourth claims are subject to demurrer under CCP § 430.10(c) because there is another action already pending between the parties that is decisive on these causes of action.

A special demurrer to a complaint may be brought on the ground that another action is pending between the same parties on the same causes of action. (CCP § 430.10(c); see also People ex rel. Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 760, 770 [“plea in abatement”].) The other pending action must involve the same parties in the same relationship, i.e., as plaintiff or defendant (Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 789), and must involve the identical cause of action in both suits such that a judgment in the first would be res judicata on the claim in the second (Bush v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1374, 1384).

The demurrer is not sustained pursuant to CCP §430.10(c). The UD action does not concern the same parties in the same relationship, and does not involve identical causes of action. Diller’s sole claim in the earlier-filed related action is for unlawful detainer—no other causes of action are alleged.

However, the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction is similar in effect to the statutory plea in abatement, and has been interpreted and applied more expansively, and therefore may apply where the narrow grounds required for statutory plea of abatement do not exist. (Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d. 781, 788.) “The established rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction provides that where two or more courts possess concurrent subject matter jurisdiction over a cause, the court that first asserts jurisdiction assumes it to the exclusion of all other courts. In essence, the rule renders concurrent jurisdiction exclusive with the first court…. [E]xactitude is not required. That the parties in the two actions are not entirely identical, and that the remedies sought by the two actions are not precisely the same, is not controlling. Instead, it is sufficient for the exercise of equitable jurisdiction that the issue in both actions is the same and arises out of the same transaction or events. (County v. Siskiyou v. Sup. Ct. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 83, 89-90.)

Here, Altamed’s claims hinge on whether payments made to Diller constitute “holdover rent” and whether Diller breached the lease by not acknowledging Altamed’s holdover tenancy. Diller argues that those issues are addressed in the UD action and will be determined pending the outcome of the UD action. The Court agrees. Here, there is near overlap between the issues to be decided in the UD action and the instant civil action. Diller’s right to possession is affected by whether or not Altamed created a holdover tenancy by remitting holdover rent.

Thus, the demurrer to the first and second cause of action is properly SUSTAINED pursuant to the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction. For this reason, the Court declines to substantively address the remainder of the arguments raised in the subject Demurrer.

This action (Case No. 21NWCV00165) is STAYED in abatement pending disposition of the UD action.