Conrad v. West

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiff after trial before the court without a jury in an unlawful detainer action, defendant appeals.

Facts:

Plaintiff, the owner of a dwelling house, leased it under a rent control “ceiling” of $75 per month. After a time plaintiff regained possession of the premises on the theory that it would be used for business property. However, without making any changes in the house he leased it to defendant for a two-year term at a rental of $350 per month. Defendant, upon learning that the “ceiling” on the property was $75, on May 13, 1948, commenced an action in the United States District Court, Southern District of California, to recover from plaintiff liquidated damages for rent paid in excess of the maximum rent together with reasonable attorney’s-fees and costs. On June 18, 1949, plaintiff filed the instant unlawful detainer action in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County seeking to recover possession of the property from defendant. Defendant by her answer and motions in the trial court alleged the pendency of the action in the United States District Court and sought to have the superior court abate the present action until the suit pending in the federal court had been disposed of. Such motions were denied and the superior

[118]

court proceeded to try the unlawful detainer action giving judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Question: Did the trial court commit prejudicial error in refusing to abate the present action pending the outcome of the suit in the United States District Court f

This question must be answered in the affirmative and is governed by these pertinent rules:

1. When a state court and a court of the United States may each take jurisdiction of an action, the tribunal where jurisdiction first attaches holds it to the exclusion of the other until its duty is fully performed and the jurisdiction involved is exhausted.

(Morrow

v.

Superior Court,

9 Cal.App.2d 16, 22 [48 P.2d 188, 50 P.2d 66] ;