judicial abstention doctrine in California

2010(Alvarado v. Selma Convalescent Hospital (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1297 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 250 ] (Alvarado)', see also Desert Healthcare Dist. v. PacifiCare FHP, Inc. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 781, 795 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 623 ] (Desert Healthcare) [“because the remedies available under the UCL, namely injunctions and restitution, are equitable in nature, courts have the discretion to abstain from employing them”].) “The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason.

2010(Alvarado v. Selma Convalescent Hospital (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1297 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 250 ] (Alvarado)', see also Desert Healthcare Dist. v. PacifiCare FHP, Inc. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 781, 795 [ 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 623 ] (Desert Healthcare) [“because the remedies available under the UCL, namely injunctions and restitution, are equitable in nature, courts have the discretion to abstain from employing them”].) “The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason.

2012Standard of Review The trial court having sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, “we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation and treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pled. [Citation.] Because the trial court dismissed this case on the basis of the doctrine of judicial abstention, however, our standard of review is abuse of discretion.” (Alvarado v. Selma Convalescent Hospital (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1297 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 250 ] (Alvarado)', see Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 545 ].) II.

2012Standard of Review The trial court having sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, “we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation and treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pled. [Citation.] Because the trial court dismissed this case on the basis of the doctrine of judicial abstention, however, our standard of review is abuse of discretion.” (Alvarado v. Selma Convalescent Hospital (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1297 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 250 ] (Alvarado)', see Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 545 ].) II.

2024A Under the doctrine of judicial abstention, a trial court has discretion to abstain from adjudicating an action if: (1) “ ‘ “granting the requested relief would require a trial court to assume the functions of an administrative agency, or to interfere with the functions of an administrative agency” ’ ”; (2) the action “ ‘ “involves determining complex economic policy, which is best handled by the Legislature or an administrative agency” ’ ”; or (3) “ ‘ “granting injunctive relief would be unnecessarily burdensome for the 13 trial court to monitor and enforce given the availability of more eff

2012Standard of Review The trial court having sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, “we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation and treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pled. [Citation.] Because the trial court dismissed this case on the basis of the doctrine of judicial abstention, however, our standard of review is abuse of discretion.” (Alvarado v. Selma Convalescent Hospital (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1297 [ 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 250 ] (Alvarado)', see Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 545 ].) II.

2024(Hambrick, at p. 148; Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1369 (Klein).) B In its minute order granting Kaiser’s motion for summary judgment, the court described the parties’ arguments on the issue of judicial abstention, stating: “[Kaiser] contends that [judicial abstention] is warranted because adjudicating [the People’s] claims would require the Court to assume the role of a regulator and substitute its policy judgments for those of the Legislature and the [DMHC].

2021The causes of action asserted in Olson’s complaint are not at issue in this appeal. 8 Another related doctrine is primary jurisdiction, which “applies ‘ “ ‘where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts’ ” ’ but involves issues ‘ “ ‘which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body.’ ” ’ ” (Bradley v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., supra, 64 Cal.App.5th at p. 912, italics omitted.) When primary jurisdiction applies, “the ‘ “ ‘judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its views.’ ” ’ ” (Ibid.)

2015Only when equitable relief is the sole relief sought may the trial court invoke the doctrine of judicial abstention. 28 (Shuts v. Covenant Holdco LLC (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 609, 625 [ 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 709 ].) In her second cause of action for fraudulent concealment, Hambrick alleges that “Plaintiffs suffered damages caused thereby including but not limited to physical injuries, emotional injuries, loss of income, future medical expenses, co-pays or co-insurance payments to the hospitals.” The prayer in the first amended complaint seeks “[s]pecial and general damages according to proof for JANDR

2015Only when equitable relief is the sole relief sought may the trial court invoke the doctrine of judicial abstention. 28 (Shuts v. Covenant Holdco LLC (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 609, 625 [ 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 709 ].) In her second cause of action for fraudulent concealment, Hambrick alleges that “Plaintiffs suffered damages caused thereby including but not limited to physical injuries, emotional injuries, loss of income, future medical expenses, co-pays or co-insurance payments to the hospitals.” The prayer in the first amended complaint seeks “[s]pecial and general damages according to proof for JANDR

2021(People v. Alice (2007) 41 Cal.4th 668, 677 [Government Code section 68081 does not require supplemental briefing when the parties had “the opportunity to brief any issues that are fairly included within the issues actually raised”].) October 1, 2018, and has never possessed a valid water treatment plant operator certificate.

2012(Ho v. Hsieh (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 337, 345 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 17 ]; Arce, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at pp. 482, 496.) The trial court neither exercised its equitable powers nor invoked the doctrine of judicial abstention; rather, it sustained its demurrer without leave to amend upon applying the rule 2080(b)(1) standards to his petition.

2012(Ho v. Hsieh (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 337, 345 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.3d 17 ]; Arce, supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at pp. 482, 496.) The trial court neither exercised its equitable powers nor invoked the doctrine of judicial abstention; rather, it sustained its demurrer without leave to amend upon applying the rule 2080(b)(1) standards to his petition.

2012“In an appeal from a motion granting judgment on the pleadings, we accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint and review the legal issues de novo. ‘A motion for judgment on the pleadings, like a general demurrer, tests the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint, supplemented by any matter of which the trial court takes judicial notice, to determine whether plaintiff or cross-complainant has stated a cause of action. [Citation.]” (Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160, 166 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 , 158 P.3d 718 ].) “ ‘We consider evidence outside the pleadings whic

2012“In an appeal from a motion granting judgment on the pleadings, we accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint and review the legal issues de novo. ‘A motion for judgment on the pleadings, like a general demurrer, tests the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint, supplemented by any matter of which the trial court takes judicial notice, to determine whether plaintiff or cross-complainant has stated a cause of action. [Citation.]” (Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160, 166 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 , 158 P.3d 718 ].) “ ‘We consider evidence outside the pleadings whic

2012“In an appeal from a motion granting judgment on the pleadings, we accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint and review the legal issues de novo. ‘A motion for judgment on the pleadings, like a general demurrer, tests the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint, supplemented by any matter of which the trial court takes judicial notice, to determine whether plaintiff or cross-complainant has stated a cause of action. [Citation.]” (Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160, 166 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 , 158 P.3d 718 ].) “ ‘We consider evidence outside the pleadings whic

2012“In an appeal from a motion granting judgment on the pleadings, we accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint and review the legal issues de novo. ‘A motion for judgment on the pleadings, like a general demurrer, tests the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint, supplemented by any matter of which the trial court takes judicial notice, to determine whether plaintiff or cross-complainant has stated a cause of action. [Citation.]” (Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160, 166 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 , 158 P.3d 718 ].) “ ‘We consider evidence outside the pleadings whic

2012“In an appeal from a motion granting judgment on the pleadings, we accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint and review the legal issues de novo. ‘A motion for judgment on the pleadings, like a general demurrer, tests the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint, supplemented by any matter of which the trial court takes judicial notice, to determine whether plaintiff or cross-complainant has stated a cause of action. [Citation.]” (Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160, 166 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 , 158 P.3d 718 ].) “ ‘We consider evidence outside the pleadings whic

2012“In an appeal from a motion granting judgment on the pleadings, we accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint and review the legal issues de novo. ‘A motion for judgment on the pleadings, like a general demurrer, tests the allegations of the complaint or cross-complaint, supplemented by any matter of which the trial court takes judicial notice, to determine whether plaintiff or cross-complainant has stated a cause of action. [Citation.]” (Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160, 166 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 , 158 P.3d 718 ].) “ ‘We consider evidence outside the pleadings whic

2007(Shamsian v. Department of Conservation (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 621, 631 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 62 ] (Shamsian).) Because the trial court dismissed this case on the basis of the doctrine of judicial abstention, however, our standard of review is abuse of discretion.

2007(Shamsian v. Department of Conservation (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 621, 631 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 62 ] (Shamsian).) Because the trial court dismissed this case on the basis of the doctrine of judicial abstention, however, our standard of review is abuse of discretion.