2018-00230661-CU-CO

Reynaldo F. Espiritu vs. Aleks Vorobets

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Stay

Filed By: Burke, George T.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment in Case No. 2015-00178934 is denied, without prejudice to filing the motion in the case [No. 2015-00178934] where the judgment was entered.

Plaintiff seeks an order to stay enforcement of judgment that was entered in case no. No. 2015-00178934. That case is still active and pending on the Cross-complaint filed by defendant.

Even though a superior court is divided into branches or departments, pursuant to California Constitution, Article VI, section 4, there is only one superior court in a county and jurisdiction is therefore vested in that court, not in any particular judge or department. Whether sitting separately or together, the judges hold but one and the same court. The doctrine of priority of jurisdiction comes into play when one court attempts to exercise jurisdiction over a dispute over which another court has already assumed jurisdiction. The doctrine is the means used to avoid “conflicting adjudications of the same subject-matter by different departments of [a superior court]”. (Williams v. Superior Court (1939) 14 Cal.2d 656, 662.) “Where a proceeding has been duly assigned for hearing and determination to one department of the superior court by the presiding judge of said court in conformity with the rules thereof, and the proceeding so assigned has not been finally disposed of therein or legally removed therefrom, it is beyond the jurisdictional authority of another department of the same court to interfere with the exercise of the power of the department to which the proceeding has been so assigned. In other words, while one department is exercising the jurisdiction vested by the Constitution in the superior court of that county, the other departments thereof are as distinct therefrom as other superior courts. If such were not the law, conflicting adjudications of the same subject-matter by different departments of the one court would bring about an anomalous situation and doubtless lead to much confusion.(citations omitted)” (Williams, supra, 14 Cal.2d at 656, 662.)

Indeed, “One department of the superior court cannot enjoin, restrain, or otherwise interfere with the judicial act of another department of the superior court. Even between superior courts of different counties, having coequal jurisdiction over a matter, the first court of equal dignity to assume and exercise jurisdiction over a matter acquires exclusive jurisdiction. [Citations.] ” (Ford v. Superior Court (1986), 188 Cal. App. 3d 737, 742; accord, Elsea v. Saberi (1992) 4 Cal. App. 4th 625, 631; Sandco American, Inc. v. Notrica (1990) 216 Cal. App. 3d 1495, 1508.)

Therefore, any motion to stay enforcement of a judgment entered in a case by a different judge of this court must be filed under that case number, in that court.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.