City of Pasadena v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Jun 13, 1928 No. Docket No. 6017.Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a trial court is not divested of jurisdiction over a pending action by a prior judgment of res judicata, and therefore prohibition is not an appropriate remedy to prevent the court from proceeding with the case.

Issues

Whether a trial court is divested of jurisdiction over a condemnation action by a prior judgment of res judicata.
Whether a writ of prohibition may be used to prevent a trial court from proceeding with a case where a prior judgment is asserted as a bar.

Disposition. Peremptory writ denied.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the trial court is not necessarily divested of jurisdiction of an action by a judgment which is res judicata.”

“It has jurisdiction in the first instance to pass upon that very question and make disposition of the cause accordingly.”

“If it determines the matter erroneously the injured party has his remedy by an appeal, which has been uniformly held is an available and adequate remedy.”

[524]

THOMPSON, J.

In August of 1924 the petitioner herein commenced an action in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, in which it sought to condemn certain property in the city of Pasadena for the purpose of widening Marengo Avenue in that city. Thereafter, and on the first day of September, 1926, one of the defendants in the condemnation suit instituted an action against the city wherein she sought to enjoin it from proceeding with the condemnation of her land, or levying any assessment against her property for the improvement contemplated by the ordinance of intention, in pursuance of which the complaint for condemnation was filed. After answer was filed and trial had in this latter action the court rendered its judgment restraining and enjoining the city of Pasadena, its board of directors, city attorney, and city engineer from paying out any money for the widening of Marengo Avenue under the ordinance of intention already mentioned and from paying out any money in connection with the condemnation of land for that purpose, and from making and collecting or attempting to collect any assessment against plaintiff’s property for the improvement contemplated by the ordinance of intention and from taking any steps in pursuance of the ordinance. This permanent injunction was issued on December 30, 1926. Nothing further was done until February 3, 1928, when Linn A. J. Hutchinson, the defendant in the condemnation action and the plaintiff in the injunction suit, made a motion to set the first-mentioned cause on the trial calendar, stating to the court that she was entitled to have it placed upon the calendar for disposal in view of the refusal of the city to dismiss it. The trial court granted the motion and set the action for trial. This proceeding seeks to prohibit the respondent court from taking any further steps in connection with the motion to set or the order setting the case for trial.

Our inquiry is directed by legal instincts to the question of whether the respondent court is without jurisdiction to do the things sought to be prohibited. The rule is so well understood that we may not interfere by prohibition with the exercise of jurisdiction actually possessed by a judicial tribunal, that it requires no citation of authority to support it. Coneededly, the respondent court had juris

[525]

City of Pasadena v. Superior Court

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief