CALIFORNIA PRESS MFG CO v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY (1941)

This is a petition for a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondent Superior Court from taking any action, step or proceeding in that action entitled Universal Sales Corporation, Ltd., a corporation, Plaintiff, v. California Press Manufacturing Company, a corporation, et al., Defendants, filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County on January 31, 1941. This latter action and another similar action filed on February 2, 1938, in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, are both based on the contract involved in the case of Universal Sales Corporation, Ltd., a Corporation, v. California Press Manufacturing Company, a Corporation, S. F. No. 15988, 118 P.2d 291, filed today. Reference is made to the opinion in the latter case for a full discussion of the provisions of the contract.

While the main case (S. F. No. 15988) was pending in this court and while the second San Francisco action was apparently being held in abeyance until final decision by this court on appeal from the main case, the Santa Clara Court proceeded to order the taking of certain depositions of certain officers of the defendant companies. The defendants objected to the taking of the depositions and to the court's taking any action in the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. On application to this court for a writ of prohibition, an alternative writ was issued.

Petitioners' application for the issuance of a peremptory writ of prohibition is based on the proposition that prohibition will lie to restrain one court from assuming jurisdiction over a controversy when another tribunal, having concurrent jurisdiction, has assumed and is exercising control over the same action. This proposition is basically sound, but it is not applicable here for the reason that although the Santa Clara action is based on the same contract, it includes a request for an accounting for sales made subsequent to the filing of the second San Francisco action. The Santa Clara Court, therefore, had jurisdiction to proceed with the taking of the depositions. But because of the opinion of this court, as expressed in the main case, that the contract was terminated, this application for a writ of prohibition becomes relatively unimportant. On the denial of this writ the petitioners here may, after the decision in the main case has become final, plead the defense of res judicata in the Santa Clara action. On such plea the respondent court can properly have no alternative but to rule in favor of petitioners.

The alternative writ heretofore issued is discharged and the petition for a peremptory writ of prohibition is denied.

PER CURIAM.