Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV00099, Date: 2023-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00099    Hearing Date: October 5, 2023    Dept: G

Defendant Bhuvneshwari Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss

Respondent: Plaintiff Fine Hospitality Group, LLC

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Bhuvneshwari Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for breach of contract. In January 2018, Plaintiff Fine Hospitality Group, LLC (FHG) entered into a hotel management agreement with Defendant Bhuvneshwari Corporation (Bhuvneshwari). According to the agreement, FHG agreed to provide management services to a Comfort Inn & Suites located in Ontario. Subsequently, FHG alleges Bhuvneshwari breached the agreements by failing to make payments, including termination fees.

On January 12, 2023, FHG filed a complaint against Bhuvneshwari and Does 1-25, alleging a single cause of action for breach of contract.

On June 6, 2023, Bhuvneshwari filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion and case management conference are set for October 5.

ANALYSIS

Bhuvneshwari moves to dismiss FHG’s Complaint on the grounds of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction. For the following reasons, the court DENIES Bhuvneshwari’s motion.

Legal Standard

The doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction is a judge-made doctrine that states “when two or more courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute, the court that first asserts jurisdiction assumes it to the exclusion of the others.” (Shaw v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 245, 255 (Shaw).) It “is based upon the public policies of avoiding conflicts that might arise between courts if they were free to make contradictory decisions or awards relating to the same controversy and preventing vexatious litigation and multiplicity of suits.” (Ibid.)

In contrast with the stricter requirements for a plea in abatement, this doctrine “does not require absolute identity of parties, causes of action or remedies sought in the initial and subsequent actions.” (Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 788 (Plant Insulation).) Instead, it merely requires that “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.” (Ibid.) It also does not require the same subject matter and instead looks at “whether the first and second actions arise from the ‘same transaction.’” (Id., at p. 789.) Where this doctrine is applicable, “the second action should be stayed.” (Shaw, supra, 78 Cal.App.5th at p. 257.)

Discussion

In this case, Bhuvneshwari argues this doctrine is satisfied by a pending action in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange. But while Bhuvneshwari references that action in the motion, Bhuvneshwari has failed to request the court take judicial notice of that action or any relevant filings made in that action. Nor does Bhuvneshwari provide any declarations and authenticated exhibits to support these arguments.

Accordingly, because the filings in the alleged first action are not properly before this court, the court cannot analyze whether the exclusive concurrent jurisdiction doctrine is applicable and thusly DENIES Bhuvneshwari’s motion without prejudice.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Bhuvneshwari’s motion is DENIED without prejudice.