Beehler

Beehler v. Beehler

Good Law
100 Cal. App. 3d 376·161 Cal. Rptr. 30·1979 Cal. App. LEXIS 2428
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 24, 1979Civ. 18084California2,530 words

Opinion

Opinion

Reynoso, J.

May a demurrer be sustained and the action dismissed with prejudice on the basis that there is another action pending when: (1) the first action is for dissolution of marriage, and (2) the second seeks to protect the community assets against defendant husband and several business associates not named in the dissolution action? We hold that there was not an action pending between the same parties (except as to that cause which seeks a declaration of plaintiffs community interest against defendant husband), and thus a demurrer may not be entered. While joinder in the first action of all defendants in the second is permitted by the Rules of Court, it is not required.

Plaintiff Mary Isabel Beehler appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the Sacramento County Superior Court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer of defendants William G. Beehler; Pacific Trust Deed Company, Inc.; Samuel Goldhagen; Bernice M. Goldhagen; Maynard Lee Samms, also known as Lee Samms; Pacific Pen Share Investment, Inc.; and Pacific Pen Shares. The trial court sustained the demurrer on the ground that there was another action already pending. Plaintiff contends that the trial court…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.