Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CAMBRA v. JUSTICE'S COURT OF SANTA ANA TP. et al.*
This is an original proceeding instituted in this court to compel respondents to file a complaint in a civil action. The facts are not in dispute.
On September 29, 1934, petitioner was injured in an automobile accident which occurred in an intersection of county roads in Huntington Beach township in Orange county. There is a class B justice's court in that township. The respondent court is the only class A justice's court in Orange county. Kenneth E. Morrison is its justice of the peace. Petitioner prepared her complaint against T. C. McNulty and C. E. Phillips, whereby she sought to recover damages in the sum of $584. It was presented to the clerk of the respondent court for filing, together with the required filing fee. The clerk refused to file the complaint on the ground that the superior court of Orange county had exclusive jurisdiction of the action. This action was upheld by the respondent justice of the peace. The sole question to be decided is whether the superior court of Orange county or the class A justice's court of Santa Ana township has original jurisdiction of the action. The case is of first impression, as the precise question has not been decided by the Supreme or any of the appellate courts of the state since the Legislature of 1933 recast the sections of the Code of Civil Procedure fixing the jurisdiction of class A justices' courts. For this reason we have little to guide us except the appropriate sections of that Code and the sections of the Constitution bearing upon the question.
The emphasis hereafter placed upon the quotations from Code sections is our own. All quotations from Code sections are taken from the Code of Civil Procedure.
Section 65 (as amended by St. 1933, p. 1808) provides as follows: “The organization and jurisdiction of the superior courts are provided for in the Constitution of this State.”
In section 81 (as amended by St. 1933, p. 2476) we find the following: “Justices' courts in cities, towns and judicial townships, having a population of 30,000 or more, shall be known, and may be designated, as ‘Justices' courts of Class A.”’
Section 82 (as amended by St. 1933, p. 1810) provides: “The establishment of a municipal court, or justices' court of Class A, in a county, or city and county, or the determination of the jurisdiction of such courts by the Legislature, shall not affect, alter or diminish the previously existing jurisdiction of the superior court of any county, or city and county, other than that of the county, or city and county, wherein such municipal or justices' court is established.”
Section 112 (as amended by St. 1933, p. 1814) contains the following: “Justices' courts of Class A shall have original jurisdiction: (a) In all cases at law in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy, amounts to one thousand dollars or less, except cases at law which involve the title or possession of real estate or the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, toll or municipal fine. * * *”
Section 395 (as amended by St. 1933, p. 1840) provides in part as follows: “* * * If the action be for injury to person, or to personal property, or for death from wrongful act, or negligence, either the county where the injury occurs, or where the injury causing death occurs, or the county in which the defendants, or some of them, reside at the commencement of the action, shall be a proper county for the trial of the action. * * * If there is a municipal or justices' court, having jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action, established in the city, city and county, town or judicial township, in which the defendant, or any defendant, so resides, or in which the injury to person or to personal property, or the injury causing death, occurs, or, in the cases hereinabove mentioned, in which the obligation was contracted to be performed, such court is a proper court for the trial of such action; otherwise any court in such county, having jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action, is a proper court for the trial thereof.”
It should be observed that the Legislature repealed section 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure which limited the territorial jurisdiction of justices' courts to the boundaries of their respective townships. St. 1933, c. 743, p. 1835, § 61. It also repealed section 832 of the same Code which provided where actions in justices' courts should be commenced. St. 1933, c. 744, p. 1904, § 198.
Section 5 of article 6 of the Constitution provides in part as follows: “The superior court shall have original jurisdiction in all civil cases and proceedings (except as in this article otherwise provided, and except, also cases and proceedings in which jurisdiction is or shall be given by law to municipal or to justices or other inferior courts). * * *”
Section 11a of article 6 of the Constitution provides: “The legislature shall determine, according to population, the number and jurisdiction of each of the inferior courts in incorporated cities or towns wherein there is no municipal court, and in townships, counties or cities and counties, and the number of judges or justices thereof and their qualifications and compensation, and shall fix by law the powers, duties and responsibilities of each of such courts and of the judges or justices thereof; and may provide that the jurisdiction of such courts shall be exclusive.”
The last clause of section 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which we have italicized, might easily have clearly expressed the intention of the Legislature had different language been used. The ambiguity arises from the fact that class B justices' courts have original jurisdiction in an ordinary action for money where the demand, exclusive of interest, does not exceed $300, and the further fact that prior to the amendments of 1933 it was held that the superior court had jurisdiction in an action for money where the demand was over $300 if the cause of action arose and the defendant resided in the county but outside a township having a class A justices' court (Van Horn v. Justice's Court, 216 Cal. 235, 13 P.(2d) 704, 707), and the still further fact that a class A justice's court was formerly given jurisdiction of ordinary actions for money where the demand was for not more than $1,000, and when the cause of action arose or the defendant resided within the township, and again the still further fact of the above-mentioned uncertainty of the language in the last clause of section 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended in 1933.
The question here arises, Did the Legislature by the last clause of section 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure intend to give the superior court or a class A justice's court in the county original jurisdiction of an action such as the one we have before us, or did it intend to give those courts concurrent original jurisdiction? The language of the clause, when considered by itself, would seem to make possible an affirmative answer to any of these propositions. However, we are assisted in solving the problem by other acts of the Legislature. In 1929 that body repealed section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This section gave superior and justices' courts concurrent jurisdiction over certain cases. St. 1929, p. 834, § 2. As we have seen, the Legislature repealed section 106 of the same Code which limited the civil jurisdiction of justices' courts to the limits of their townships. One of the reasons for the creation of class A justices' courts was to take away some of the work of superior courts in order to relieve congestion there. There is evident a policy on the part of the Legislature to reduce the jurisdiction of the superior court by granting greater jurisdiction to the inferior court. Van Horn v. Justice's Court, supra. While the case just cited was decided under the law in effect before the amendments of 1933 became effective, the following language the Supreme Court there used should be applicable to the instant case: “There can be no such thing as concurrent jurisdiction over the same subject-matter of an action in the superior court and in the justice's court. * * * As is said in a previous part of this opinion, where the jurisdiction of the justice's court ends, the jurisdiction of the superior court begins. There is no overlapping of jurisdiction, and no option is given to a litigant to select one or the other of these two courts in which to institute his action.”
As the venue of the action is laid in Orange county, and as the restriction on the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent court to its township lines has been removed by the repeal of section 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and as the policy of the law seems to be against giving the superior court of Orange county and the respondent court concurrent jurisdiction over the action, and as the respondent court has territorial jurisdiction and jurisdiction over ordinary actions for money where the demand is for not more than $1,000, we have concluded that the respondent court has exclusive original jurisdiction of the case of Gloria Cambra v. T. C. McNulty and C. E. Phillips.
It is ordered that the peremptory writ of mandate be issued directing the respondent court and justice of the peace to file the complaint, a copy of which is attached to the petition in this cause upon being paid a filing fee in the sum of $5.
MARKS, Justice.
We concur: BARNARD, P. J.; JENNINGS, J.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Civ. 1392.
Decided: March 06, 1935
Court: District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)