Demurrer to Second Amended Petitioner; Motion to Stay Proceedings
Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR DEPARTMENT CM06 HON. JUDGE Megan L. Wagner
Date: 07/10/26 Court Room Rules and Notices
# Case Name Tentative 1 Rayhan – Other Probate - (2024 - DEMURRER OR MOTION TO STAY 01401950)
Respondents Memorial Health Services and Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center, Inc. dba MemorialCare Orange Coast Medical Center’s Demurrer to Second Amended Petitioner, or, in the alternative, Motion to Stay Proceedings (ROA 180) is GRANTED as to the alternative motion to stay.
Respondents Request for Judicial Notice (ROA 178) is GRANTED as to Exhibits A and B.
By their motion, Respondents demur to the Second Amended Petition (“SAP”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(c) and, as to Petitioner David Rayhan only, on standing grounds. Alternatively, Respondents ask this court to stay this proceeding (the “Probate Proceeding”) on the ground that it is largely duplicative of a pending civil action (the “Civil Action,” Case No. 2024-01383926) and presents a possibility of conflicting rulings. Because the court grants the motion to stay, it makes no ruling on the demurrer.
The Probate Proceeding and the Civil Action both arise out of Respondents’ (defendants in the Civil Action but referred to as Respondents throughout) alleged wrongdoing in connection with the medical care of Syrus Rayhan (“Decedent”) between April 2, 2023 and Decedent’s death on September 30, 2024. The parties in the two proceedings are identical. David Rayhan, Decedent’s son, and Elaheh Rayhan, Decedent’s widow are the petitioners/plaintiffs. Respondents in the Probate Proceeding are the defendants in the Civil Action. In addition, the underlying factual allegations in the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) in the Civil Action and the SAP in the Probate Proceeding are nearly identical.
Based on the shared factual allegations, the SAC alleges six causes of action: (1) Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse – Neglect; (2) Battery; (3) Statutory Violations of Rights; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (5) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (6) Retaliation/Discrimination in Violation of Health & Safety Code 1278.5. It seeks general, special, and punitive damages, declaratory relief, and fees & costs.
The SAP, on the other hand, alleges a single cause of action seeking to compel Respondents to “honor David Rayhan’s authority as agent under Advance Health Care Directive” for Decedent. Although the title of the SAP might suggest the petition seeks only to compel Respondents’ acknowledgement of David Rayhan’s authority on his father’s behalf, the SAP seeks compensatory and punitive damages along with fees & costs. Both the SAC and the SAP arise out of Respondents’ alleged mistreatment of Decedent and alleged mistreatment of his family during the time Decedent was admitted and being treated. Both involve claims Respondents ignored David Rayhan’s authority to act on his father’s behalf under an Advance Health Care Directive.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
“‘[W]hen 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. [Citation.] The rule 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. [Citation.] . . . [¶] . . . “‘[T]he rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction does not require absolute identity of parties, causes of action or remedies sought in the initial and subsequent actions. . . . 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.]
The rule is a “judicial rule of priority or preference and is not jurisdictional in the traditional sense of the work,” in that it “does not divest a court, which otherwise has jurisdiction of an action, or jurisdiction.” [Citation.] Because it is a policy rule, application of the rule depends upon the balancing of countervailing policies.’” (People ex rel. Bonta v. GreenPower Motor Co., Inc. (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 43.) “The rule is established and enforced not ‘so much to protect the rights of parties as to protect the rights of Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction to avoid conflict of jurisdiction, confusion and delay in the administration of justice.’” (Plant Insulation Co v.
Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 787.)
Further, trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Frieberg v. Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489; see OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 141 [trial court’s “‘ inherent power’” to stay proceedings is “‘ incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants’”].)
Here, the Civil Action was filed first. Accordingly, based on the overlapping allegations and prayers for relief in the Civil Action and the Probate Proceeding and under the foregoing reasoning,
the court finds a stay of the Probate Proceeding pending completion of the Civil Action would satisfy the requirements of judicial economy and avoid the possibility of contradictory decisions and awards.
Respondents’ motion for stay is GRANTED.
Respondents are directed to give notice. 1 Plunkett – Trust (2024 – MOTION FOR UNDERTAKING 01405064) Respondents Laura Plunkett, Nicholas Plunkett, and Daniel Plunkett’s Motion for an Order Requiring Petitioner, Roger Plunkett, to File an Undertaking in the Amount of $8,633.78 (ROA 105) is GRANTED.
Respondents’ Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED as to Exhibit 2 and DENIED as to Exhibits 1 and 3.
Respondents seek an order compelling Petitioner to furnish an undertaking on the grounds that Petitioner is a resident of North Carolina and there is a reasonable possibility Respondents will obtain judgment in their favor.
The motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1030 (§ 1030) which reads, in full:
“(a) When the plaintiff in an action or special proceeding resides out of the state, or is a foreign corporation, the defendant may at any time apply to the court by noticed motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to file an undertaking to secure an award of costs and attorney’s fees which may be awarded in the action or special proceeding. For the purposes of this section, “attorney’s fees” means reasonable attorney’s fees a party may be authorized to recover by a statute apart from this section or by contract.
(b) The motion shall be made on the grounds that the plaintiff resides out of the state or is a foreign corporation and that there is a reasonable possibility that the moving defendant will obtain judgment in the action or special proceeding. The motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit in support of the grounds for the motion and by a memorandum of points and authorities. The affidavit shall set forth the nature and amount of the costs and attorney’s fees the defendant has incurred and expects to incur by the conclusion of the action or special proceeding.
(c) If the court, after hearing, determines that the grounds for the motion have been established, the court shall order that the plaintiff file the undertaking in an amount specified in the court’s order as security for costs and attorney’s fees.