Pesquera Del Pacifico v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Jan 19, 1949 No. Civ. 3940Published

Before: Mussell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the pendency of a lawsuit in a foreign country does not bar a subsequent action between the same parties for the same cause in California, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to stay the proceedings.

Issues

Whether the pendency of an action in a foreign country requires the abatement of a subsequent action in California between the same parties for the same cause.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for a continuance based on the pendency of a foreign action.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The pendency of the action in the Republic of Mexico is not a bar to the institution of another action between the same parties and for the same cause of action in the courts of California”

“It is apparent that the ruling on the motion for continuance based on these findings was a matter entirely within the discretion of the trial court and we cannot say that there was an abuse of discretion in the denial of the motion.”

[739]

MUSSELL, J.

In this application for a writ of prohibition petitioners seek to restrain the Superior Court of San Diego County from taking any further proceedings in an action pending between Thomas P. Gonzalez and Ventura Blanco, as plaintiffs, and Pesquera del Pacifico S. de R. L., Abelardo L. Rodriguez et al., petitioners herein.

The action herein involved was commenced on December 5, 1945, and was for damages in the sum of $38,088.10, as the result of the seizure of raw shelled clams by the defendants. Answer was filed and the matter set for trial. Defendants moved for a continuance on the grounds that another action involving the same parties and the same subject matter was pending before the courts of Mexico. The motion for a continuance was denied and these proceedings followed.

It appears from affidavits in support of the petition that on January 7, 1945, the defendant Pesquera del Pacifico, S. de R. L., hereinafter referred to as the company, executed a “purchase-sales contract” for all clams caught in Lower California by certain “cooperatives” and advanced various sums of money for the purchase of equipment and material to develop clam-digging operations; that on or about March 21, 1945, certain of the “cooperatives,” in violation of the contract of January 7th, entered into an agreement with plaintiffs’ predecessors and assignors for the purchase and sale of clams; that on July 14, 1945, the company and others commenced an action in the Judicial District of Ensenada, Republic of Mexico, against certain of the “cooperatives” and Gonzalez and Blanco, alleging a violation of the contract of January 7th and seeking the cancellation of the contract of March 21, 1945; that the parties to the action stipulated that Gonzalez and Blanco could continue to take clams from certain of the cooperatives and that such cooperatives would install their fishing camps at places other than those used to supply the company; that this stipulation was approved by the court and embodied in its final decision dated August 29, 1945; that on October 30, 1945, the company filed a further petition in said action alleging a violation of the stipulation and judgment in that Gonzalez and Blanco and others had taken clams from clam beds that were being worked by cooperatives supplying the company; that the court obtained reports from the captain of the port of Ensenada and the fish inspector that Gonzalez and Blanco had violated the stipulated judgment; that on November 29,1945, the court ordered that all clams consigned to Gonzalez and Blanco on board two vessels in the

Pesquera Del Pacifico v. Superior Court

AI Brief

MUSSELL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief