Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 24STCV06590, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV06590    Hearing Date: May 31, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Defendants’ Motion to Stay Action Pending Labor Commission Proceeding.

BACKGROUND

FRANCESCA WEBB (“Plaintiff”) brought this case against BOUNTY LA, LLC and CYRUS DAVAR (“Defendants”) seeking damages after Defendants allegedly stole monies belonging to Plaintiff, their former client. The causes of action are (1) Conversion, (2)  Breach Of Fiduciary Duty, (3) Fraud, (4) Declaratory Relief, (5) Breach Of The Implied Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing, (6) Violation Of Civil Code § 3344, (7) Violation Of Common Law Rights Of Publicity, (8) Violation Of Lab. Code § 1700.25, (9) Violation Of Bus. & Pro. Code § 17200, and (10) Accounting.

Defendants filed a motion to stay this action pending the completion of Labor Commission proceedings between the parties. Plaintiff disputes that the Labor Commission proceedings will conclusively resolve all, or substantially all, issues between the parties. But Plaintiff expressly does not oppose a stay until the proceedings are complete. Expressly consenting to the stay procedure would be binding on any appeal. See, e.g., Stebbins v. White (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 769, 782.

LEGAL STANDARD

Courts have inherent power to stay cases pending administrative review and exhaustion, including for efficiency. E.g., Neman v. Com. Cap. Bank (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 645, 653.

Res judicata and collateral estoppel can apply to Labor Commissioner decisions, depending on the applicable factors, such as that the decision became final, identical factual issues were involved, jurisdiction existed to resolve claims of the subsequent action, and the claim could have been raised in the prior proceeding. Noble v. Draper (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1, 12-18.

ANALYSIS

Defendants report that they filed a Petition to Determine Controversy with the California Labor Commissioner, pursuant to the parties’ written agreement. Declaration of Neville Johnson, ¶ 2, Ex. A. They contend that the Court does not have jurisdiction over this case because of that fact. Plaintiff agrees that the Labor Commissioner has exclusive jurisdiction over some, but not all, the issues in this case, and that this case should be stayed.

This case expressly is based on, “Talent Agencies Act, Labor Code section 1700 et seq….” Complaint, ¶ 1. “[C]ontroversies colorably arising under the Talent Agencies Act are within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Commissioner….” Styne v. Stevens (2001) 26 Cal.4th 42, 59.

Thus, the Court’s current lack of jurisdiction over this civil case is clear.

Additionally, a stay would promote efficiency by having at least some alleged issues resolved administratively with the potential that a final administrative decision could be at least partially binding in this action.

CONCLUSION

The Court grants the non-opposed motion. This case is stayed pending a final determination by the Labor Commission. At the hearing, the Court will set a Status Conference on a date that works for all parties.