Facts

Darryl Cotton and Jose Hurtado filed suit against Larry Geraci, Rebecca Berry, Michael Weinstein, Scott Toothacre, and the firm, Ferris & Britton APC. Plaintiffs also sued Gina Austin, Austin Legal Group APC, along with Sean Miller, Finch Thorton & Baird, David Demian, and Adam Witt in relation to a pending San Diego Superior Court Case (Case No. 37-2017-00010073-CU-BC-CTL) was based on an alleged real estate purchase and sale contract. The court previously ordered the case stayed until the underlying state court action was resolved, and found Cotton was seeking to litigate the exact same issues in a different forum, engaging in improper forum shopping.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Cotton alleged eighteen causes of action against defendants, and claimed that Cotton's property qualified for a conditional use permit for the establishment of a Medical Marijuana Consumer Collective. Cotton alleged he and Geraci orally agreed to terms for sale of Cotton's property, and that the agreement contained condition precedents prior to closing. Under the agreement, according to Cotton, Geraci was to provide a $50,000 non-refundable deposit for Cotton to keep if the permit was not issued, a total purchase price of $800,000 if the permit was issued, and a 10 percent equity stake in the collective with a guaranteed monthly equity distribution of $10,000. Cotton claimed Geraci breached the agreement by filing the conditional use permit application without paying the balance of his deposit and did not provide the final agreement as promised.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: In Geraci's underlying state action against Cotton, he claimed the parties entered a written agreement for the purchase and sale of real property in San Diego, and Geraci paid Cotton $10,000 to be applied to the sales price of $800,000. Geraci alleged Cotton anticipatorily breached the contract by stating he would not perform according to the terms of the written contract. Geraci claimed Cotton threatened not to perform unless Geraci made an additional down payment, and that Cotton contacted the City of San Diego in an attempt to withdraw a conditional use permit that was a condition of sale of the subject property.

Result

The court dismissed Cotton's complaint with prejudice pursuant to the court's order staying the case under the Colorado River abstention doctrine. The court concluded that Cotton was improperly attempting to forum shop and circumvent the court's prior order staying the issues pending resolution of the underlying state court action.