Aguilar v. Omni Logistics LLC

106 Purcell vs. Potratz

2019-01115653 1. Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 2. Status Conference

Defendants GPB Capital Holdings II, L.P.; GPB Automotive Portfolio, L.P.; and GPB Capital Holdings, LLC’s application for pro hac vice admission of attorney Glen A. Kopp is GRANTED.

On or before the anniversary of the date of this order, if this attorney remains counsel for the moving parties, the moving parties must pay an annual renewal fee of five hundred dollars ($500) for each year that the attorney maintains pro hac vice status in this case. (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (e)(2).)

Moving parties shall provide notice. 107 Aguilar vs. Omni Logistics LLC

2025-01490214 1. Demurrer to Complaint 2. Case Management Conference

Defendant Omni Logistics, LLC has filed a demurrer to abate/stay under Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 430.10, subdivision (c) or, in the alternative, a motion to stay the instant action based upon the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction. (ROA #20.)

Plaintiff Miguel Aguilar did not file an opposition to the motion. Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the demurrer/motion may be treated as an abandonment of the issue or implied concession on the merits. (See Herzberg v. County of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1, 20.)

The Court has considered the substance of Defendant’s demurrer/motion. The Court SUSTAINS IN PART the demurrer as to the requested order to abate or stay the instant action but OVERRULES the demurrer to the extent it seeks such an order without leave to amend. Nevertheless, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to stay under the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the instant action is stayed pending the final resolution of Magana v. OMNI Logistics, LLC, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 24STCV24638. (See CCP, § 1049 [“An action is deemed to be pending from the time of its commencement until its final determination upon appeal, or until the time for appeal has passed, unless the judgment is sooner satisfied.].)

Defendant’s Requests for Judicial Notice at ROA #18 and ROA #52 are GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

“A plea in abatement pursuant to section 430.10, subdivision (c), may be made by demurrer or answer when there is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.” (Plant Insulation Co. v. Fiberborad Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 787, emphases omitted.) Here, the Court finds that the Magana action is such an action based upon the allegations of the operative complaint in this action and the facts judicially noticed.

“The only relief to which a litigant is entitled upon the plea, by either demurrer or answer, that a prior action between the same parties is pending and undetermined is the judgment specified by section 597, Code of Civil Procedure, that the second action abate.” (Lord v. Garland (1946) 27 Cal.2d 840, 851.) Here, Defendant’s notice of demurrer stated that it “demur[s] to the complaint under California Code of Civil procedure section 430.10(c)” and seeks an order “to abate/stay the instant action.” (ROA #20, p. 2.) Therefore, the only relief to which Defendant is entitled is the judgment specified by CCP section 597.

The judgment permitted under CCP section 597 is an “interlocutory judgment . . . entered in favor of the defendant . . . that no trial of other issues shall be had until the final determination of that other action.”

Although Defendant’s Notice of Plaintiff’s Non-Opposition contends that the instant case is now “subject to dismissal” because the Magana action has reached a final judgment (ROA #51, p. 2; see also ROA #52), the Court notes that Defendant’s demurrer was noticed as being brought under CCP section 430.10, subdivision (c), and the demurrer seeks only abatement or a stay. “When a demurrer is sustained on the ground of another action pending, the proper order is not a dismissal, but abatement of further proceedings pending termination of the first action.” (Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreborad Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 787, citing CCP, § 597 and Lord, supra, 27 Cal.2d at p. 851; see also Cal. Union Insurance Co. v. Trinity River Land Co. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 104, 109, fn. 3 [“the appropriate action [is] an abatement, not a dismissal”].)

Moreover, when sustaining a demurrer based upon CCP section 430.10, subdivision (c), it would be “an abuse of discretion to withhold leave to amend.” (Lord, supra, 27 Cal.2d at p. 851.) Therefore, the Court declines to sustain the instant demurrer without leave to amend, as requested by Defendant.

However, the Court also notes that the instant ruling is without prejudice to Defendant bringing another demurrer to “plead the res judicata effect of the [Magana] judgment in bar of the subsequent action” upon the expiration of the stay in this action. (Id. [“If a judgment upon the merits is rendered in the suit first commenced, the party asserting the plea in abatement should be granted leave to amend to plead the res judicata effect of the judgment in bar of the subsequent action”].)

Nevertheless, the Court rules that a stay is warranted under the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction. “Unlike the statutory plea of abatement, 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.” (Plant, supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at p. 788.) Therefore, even if there is not an absolute identity of parties, causes of action or remedies sought between the Magana action and the instant action, the Court may stay the instant action under the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction because the Court finds that the Magana court “has the power to bring before it all the necessary parties” and “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.)

Defendant shall give notice. 108 Bojorquez vs. Hood Pacific Contractors, Inc.

Motion for Leave to Amend

Plaintiff Jose Bojorquez’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc. [CCP], § 473, subd. (a)(1).)

Plaintiff Bojorquez seeks an order granting him leave to file a second amended complaint (SAC) solely to add a new named plaintiff, Filiberto Rodriguez Murillo, as an additional class representative. The SAC still asserts the exact same claims, based on the same policies and practices, during the same class period already at issue in the operative complaint. (ROA #42, Mot. P&A, p. 1.)

Defendant Hood Pacific Contractors, Inc. opposes the motion solely on the ground that on 6/18/2026, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and (1) ordered Plaintiff Bojorquez to arbitrate his individual claims against Defendant, (2) dismissed Plaintiff Bojorquez’s class claims due to the class waiver in Plaintiff Bojorquez’s arbitration agreement with Defendant, and (3) stayed Plaintiff Bojorquez’s remaining PAGA claim pending completion of the arbitration pursuant to CCP section 1281.4. (ROA #71, Opp., at p. 1, citing ROA #69 [6/18/2026 minute order].)

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend “violates this Court’s order, is brought in the wrong forum (Court versus arbitration), and would require Hood . . . to litigate in two different forums.” (Id.) Defendant contends that “[i]f the Court elects to entertain Plaintiff’s motion despite the stay, Defendant would be prejudiced by permitting amendment of Plaintiff Bojorquez s first amended complaint because (1) it would force Defendant to litigate in two forums regarding the same case at the same time and (2) permit Plaintiff Murillo to circumvent both the Court’s stay and dismissal of the Class claims.” (Id.)

All of Defendant’s arguments lack merit.

The Court’s 6/18/2026 order granted a stay of Plaintiff Bojorquez’s remaining PAGA claim pending completion of the ordered arbitration under CCP section 1281.4. (ROA #69.) That statute provides, in relevant part:

If a court . . . has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of