Citibank, N.A. vs. Minguela, Victor

Additionally, after the dismissal of Defendant Frank G. Borba, Jr. Family Partnership, the parties appear to be the same on the face of the pleadings.

However, as noted by the Defendant, the Aegis Action contains a PAGA claim. A PAGA claim "is fundamentally a law enforcement action designed to protect the public and not to benefit private parties." (Gavriiloglou v. Prime Healthcare Management, Inc. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 595, 603.) PAGA plaintiffs seek to recover penalties that would otherwise be sought by the state. (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 993, 1003.) PAGA claims and class actions necessarily involve different sets of potential penalties and damages. As such, the Court does not find that the matters involve the same parties nor the same causes of action. As such, the Court overrules the demurrer on the abatement theory.

Motion to Stay

Our Supreme Court has stated that the "first-filed rule in California means that when two courts of the same sovereignty have concurrent jurisdiction, the first to assume jurisdiction over a particular subject matter of a particular controversy takes it exclusively, and the second court should not thereafter assert control over that subject matter." (Advanced Bionics Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 697, 707.) The statutory plea in abatement rule is similar in effect to the "exclusive concurrent jurisdiction rule," which requires courts to abate a later-filed suit in favor of an earlier suit in a different court.

The exclusive concurrent jurisdiction rule is broader, however, than the statutory plea of abatement because it does not require absolute identity of parties, causes of action, or remedies sought in the initial and subsequent action. (Plant Insulation, supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at p. 789.) In Plant Insulation, the Court of Appeal held that: "[i]f 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." (Id. at p. 788.)

Here, the two Actions involve the same underlying facts and Labor Code violations, are both brought against Defendant Borba Dairy and therefore satisfy the requirements of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction. As such, the Court grants the motion to stay and stays the Bokhour Action pending the resolution of the Aegis Action.

If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re: Citibank, N.A. vs. Minguela, Victor Case No.: VCL330258 Date: June 25, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias Motion: Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Default and Dismiss Without Prejudice Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion; to dismiss this matter without prejudice.

Facts and Analysis

While Plaintiff obtained default judgment in this matter on April 29, 2026, counsel for Plaintiff has subsequently discovered that Defendant filed for bankruptcy, and obtained an automatic stay, on April 29, 2026. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to set aside the default and dismiss this matter without prejudice. If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court,