Castellini v. Municipal Court

• Decision Date: 04 May 1970
• Citation: 86 Cal.Rptr. 698,7 Cal.App.3d 174
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Edgar A. CASTELLINI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant; ANDERSON & PERKINS, INC., a corporation, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Civ. 26620.

Page 698

86 Cal.Rptr. 698

7 Cal.App.3d 174

Edgar A. CASTELLINI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Defendant ANDERSON & PERKINS, INC., a corporation, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

Civ. 26620.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

May 4, 1970.

Ernest M. Thayer, San Francisco, for plaintiff and appellant.

Joseph H. Inglese, by Roger M. Hughes, San Francisco, for real party in interest, Anderson & Perkins.

ELKINGTON, Associate Justice.

Anderson & Perkins, Inc., as assignee for collection, commenced an action in the San Francisco Municipal Court against Edgar A. Castellini, Columbia Electric Co., a corporation, and others for money owed. The parties and the municipal court interpreted the complaint as alleging that Columbia Electric Company had contracted the indebtedness, but that Castellini was also liable, since the corporation was the instrumentality through which he for convenience transacted his business. Castellini demurred generally, contending: 'An action which seeks to hold an individual defendant liable for the debts of a corporation on the alter ego theory is of an equitable nature, and jurisdiction is to be determined accordingly.' The demurrer was overruled and the municipal court set the case for trial.

Castellini thereupon, by application for a writ of prohibition filed in the superior court, sought to prevent the municipal court from proceeding with the trial of the action. The superior court thereafter entered its judgment 'that the peremptory writ applied for herein is denied.' It is from that judgment that the instant appeal is taken.

Castellini's sole argument here, as in the municipal and superior courts below, is that an action seeking to hold an individual defendant liable for the debts of a corporation on the 'alter ego' theory is of an equitable nature, over which the municipal court has no jurisdiction. We find ourselves in agreement.

The municipal court is not a court of general jurisdiction; its jurisdiction is limited by the Constitution to that prescribed by the Legislature. (Bloniarz v. Roloson, 70 Cal.2d 143, 147, 74 Cal.Rptr. 285, 449 P.2d 221.) The Constitution, article VI, section 5, and its implementing statute, Code of Civil Procedure section 89, make it clear that the court's jurisdiction is exclusive; it does not have any concurrent jurisdiction with the superior court (see Hopkins v. Anderson, 218 Cal. 62, 66, 21 P.2d 560; Williams v. Rosinsky Motor Co., 133 Cal.App.2d Supp. 798, 800, 284 P.2d 979; Cook v. Winklepleck, 16 Cal.App.2d Supp. 759, 762, 59 P.2d 463.)

The doctrine authorizing disregard of the fiction of separate corporate existence, when necessary to circumvent fraud or to protect the rights of third persons, Is essentially equitable in nature. (See Stark v. Coker, 20 Cal.2d 839, 846, 129 P.2d 390; Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Stover, 8 Cir., 327 F.2d 288; Auer v. Frank, 227 Cal.App.2d 396, 407, 38 Cal.Rptr. 684; Grotheer v. Meyer Rosenberg, Inc., 11 Cal.App.2d 268, 273, 53 P.2d 996.)

The municipal court does not have equitable jurisdiction except in the situations expressly granted by Code of Civil Procedure section 89 (Bloniarz v. Roloson, supra, 70 Cal.2d 143, 147, 74 Cal.Rptr. 285, 449 P.2d 221; Strachan v. American...