Castellini v. Municipal Court

Opinion

ELKINGTON, J.

Anderson & Perkins, Inc., as assignee for collection, commenced an action in the San Francisco Municipal Court against Edgar A. Castellini, Columbia Electric Co., a corporation, and others for money owed. The parties and the municipal court interpreted the complaint as alleging that Columbia Electric Company had contracted the indebtedness, but that Castellini was also liable, since the corporation was the instrumentality through which he for convenience transacted his business. Castellini demurred generally, contending: “An action which seeks to hold an individual defendant liable for the debts of a corporation on the alter ego theory is of an equitable nature, and jurisdiction is to be determined accordingly.” The demurrer was overruled and the municipal court set the case for trial.

Castellini thereupon, by application for a writ of prohibition filed in the superior court, sought to prevent the municipal court from proceeding with the trial of the action. The superior court thereafter entered its judgment

[176]

“that the peremptory writ.applied for herein is denied.” It is from that judgment that the instant appeal is taken.

Castellini’s sole argument here, as in- the municipal and superior courts below, is that an action seeking to hold an individual- defendant liable for the debts of a corporation on the

“alter ego”

theory is of an equitable nature, over which the municipal court has no jurisdiction. We find ourselves in agreement.

The municipal court is not a court of general jurisdiction; its jurisdiction is limited by the Constitution- to that prescribed by the Legislature.

(Bloniarz

v.

Roloson,

70 Cal.2d 143, 147 [74 Cal.Rptr. 285, 449 P.2d 221].) The Constitution, article VI, section 5, and its implementing statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 89, make it clear that the court’s jurisdiction is exclusive; it does not have any concurrent jurisdiction with the superior court (see