Case Name:   Richard B. Beauchesne v. Laura R. Beauchesne, et al.

Case No.:       1-14-CV-263877

Demurrer of Defendant Laura Beauchesne to Plaintiff’s Complaint

The request for judicial notice in support of demurrer of defendant Laura Beauchesne to plaintiff’s complaint is GRANTED. Code section 452, subdivision (d) states that the court may take judicial notice of “[r]ecords of any court of this state.” This section of the statute has been interpreted to mean that the trial court may take judicial notice of the existence of the court’s own records. Evidence Code section 452 and 453 permit the trial court to “take judicial notice of the existence of judicial opinions and court documents, along with the truth of the results reached—in the documents such as orders, statements of decision, and judgments—but [the court] cannot take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements in decisions or court files, including pleadings, affidavits, testimony, or statements of fact.” (People v. Woodell (1998) 17 Cal.4th 448, 455.)

Although not expressly stated as such, the court understands defendant Laura Beauchesne to be asserting, among other things, the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction. (See Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781—“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. [Citations.] If the court exercising original jurisdiction has the power to bring before it all the necessary parties, the fact that the parties in the second action are not identical does not preclude application of the rule. Moreover, the remedies sought in the separate actions need not 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. [Citation.]”) Defendant Laura Beauchesne’s demurrer to plaintiff Richard B. Beauchesne’s complaint on the ground that there is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action [Code Civ. Proc., §430.10, subd. (c)] is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.  Under the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, plaintiff Richard B. Beauchesne’s complaint filed under case number 1-14-CV-263877 is hereby abated in favor of the family law action, case number 1-09-FL-151906 where plaintiff Richard B. Beauchesne may seek postjudgment remedies. “With regard to marital status judgments entered on or after January 1, 1993, Fam. C. §2120 et seq. provides a comprehensive statutory scheme for setting aside property division (and support) judgments on grounds of fraud, perjury, duress, mental incapacity or mistake.  Nothing in that statutory scheme suggests that the authorized relief includes a tort remedy.” (See Rubinstein v. Rubinstein (2000) 81 Cal.App.4^th 1131, 1147.)