Baca v. Baca

# Case Name Tentative

“provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time.” (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212; see also Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690 [“strict requirement of diligence” for reconsideration motions].)

Defendant shall give notice of this ruling.

55. Baca v. Baca Defendant Carey M. Baca’s motion to stay or dismiss this action for inconvenient forum pursuant to C.C.P. § 2026- 418.10(a)(2) and § 410.30 is DENIED. The alternative 01546605 request under C.C.P. § 430.10(c) is GRANTED in part.

Defendant’s request under C.C.P. § 418.10 is DENIED as defendant fails to explain how proceeding with this action in this court would be an unjust or unfair. The burden of proof is on defendant as the moving party. Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal. 3d 744, 751. The court assumes, without deciding, that Nevada could be a suitable forum. Defendant must also show that the private interests of the litigants and the public interests also favor defendant. Defendant fails to make this showing. First, “plaintiff’s choice of a forum should rarely be disturbed unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant.” Id. at 754. “[P]laintiff’s choice of forum is presumed to be convenient and [] a state has a strong interest in assuring its own residents an adequate forum for the redress of grievances.” Id. at 754-755.

Defendant has not presented evidence addressing these criteria, other than (1) defendant’s residence is Nevada; and (2) there is another action currently pending in Nevada that involves some but not all of the claims asserted in the current action. Defendant’s motion pursuant to C.C.P. § 418.10 is therefore denied. And based on the same rationale, the motion pursuant to § 410.30 is also DENIED.

However, the court GRANTS defendant’s motion pursuant to C.C.P. § 430.10(c) and STAYS this litigation.

The Nevada action and the current action involve the same premise: allegations that defendant created a fraudulent or unenforceable power of attorney in June 2023. (Compl. at ¶ 17; Exh. E ¶ 20). Both the Nevada action and the current action require two different courts to determine the validity of the June 2023 power of attorney, and seek remedies that would flow therefrom.

The Nevada action (filed in February 2024) and the current action (filed in February 2026) involve exclusive concurrent jurisdiction analysis. “The established rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction provides that where two or more courts

# Case Name Tentative

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.” County of Siskiyou v. Superior Court (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 83, 89.

Section 430.10(c) allows for a demurrer when “[t]here is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.” While the Nevada action and the current action seek some different remedies, the disputed contention is identical: the validity of the June 2023 power of attorney. Plaintiffs do not dispute this. Rather, plaintiffs assume that the Neveda action will reach its conclusion prior to any decision by this court: “[W]e will not see a situation in which this Court makes a different ruling than the Neveda Court’s imminent adjudication on that issue, simply because any such adjudication could not occur until well after the Nevada Court has decided the issue.” (Opp. at p. 5).

While that may be true, the court is not willing to risk that it may not be true.

“Granting a stay in a case where the issues in two actions are substantially identical is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. In exercising its discretion the court should consider the importance of . . . avoiding unseemly conflicts with the courts of other jurisdictions. It should also consider . . . the stage to which the proceedings in the other court have already advanced.” Thomson v. Continental Ins. Co. (1967) 66 Cal. 2d 738, 746-747.

Based on the foregoing, this litigation is STAYED until further order of this court.

The case management conference is VACATED.

The court sets a status conference regarding the stay for August 28, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28. Five days before the status conference, the parties are order to file a joint statement addressing the Nevada action.

Plaintiffs shall give notice of this ruling.

56.

57.

58.