Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 24STCV10171, Date: 2024-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV10171    Hearing Date: October 23, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings

Plaintiffs Anatoly Krichevsky (Krichevsky) and Igor Finkelshteyn (Krichevsky ) (collectively Plaintiffs) sue Defendants Robert Oberlander; Natalie Martin; Silvi Kopytov; Gennadiy Kopytov; Woodland Hills Recovery Center, LLC; Warner Park Recovery Center; and Does 1-10 pursuant to an April 22, 2024 Complaint alleging causes of action for (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Duty of Loyalty; (2) Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; (3) Conversion; (4) Penal Code § 496 subdivision (c); and (5) Breach of Contract.

The claims arise from the following. Plaintiffs Krichevsky and Finkelshteyn each own 25% of Defendant Warner Park Recovery Center, LLC (Warner Park), an addiction treatment center in Woodland Hills, California. Defendant Gennadiy Kopytov (Kopytov) owns the remaining 50% of Warner Park. The Plaintiffs allege that Kopytov and the other individual Defendants including Robert Oberlander, the COO of Warner Park, and Natalie Martin, the Director of Admissions at Warner Park, have formed a competing addiction treatment center, Defendant Woodland Hills Recovery Center (Woodland Hills Recovery), using Warner Park’s assets and confidential and proprietary information. The Plaintiffs further allege that Kopytov, Oberlander, and Martin all continue to be employed and paid by Warner Park.

B. Motion Before the Court

On July 11, 2024, the Court ordered the claims against Defendant Kopytov stayed pending their resolution through JAMS arbitration, reference no. 5210000424.

On September 23, 2024, Defendants Oberlander, Martin, Silvi Kopytov, and Woodland Hills Recovery filed the instant motion to stay the proceedings against them pending the outcome of the Plaintiff’s arbitration against Defendant Gennadiy Kopytov.

On October 10, 2024, Plaintiffs opposed the motion.

On October 16, 2024, Defendants Oberlander, Martin, Silvi Kopytov, and Woodland Hills Recovery, replied.

II. Motion

A. Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4, “If an application has been made to a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, for an order to arbitrate a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State and such application is undetermined, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until the application for an order to arbitrate is determined and, if arbitration of such controversy is ordered, until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)  

“[A] court ordinarily has inherent power, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice.” (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 141 [citing People v. Bell (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 323, 329.]) “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” (Landis v. North American Co. (1936) 299 U.S. 248, 254; OTO, L.L.C., supra, at p. 141.)  

B. Analysis

Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs’ allegations against Kopytov in this action are identical to their allegations against Oberlander, Martin, Silvi Kopytov, and Woodland Hills Recovery and that allowing the JAMS arbitration and this action to proceed simultaneously would be inefficient and duplicative. (Mot. pp. 2-3.) They argue that the parties, causes of action, and issues to be determined in this action directly overlap with those being determined in the JAMS arbitration. (Mot. pp. 4-5.) The Defendants further argue a series of due process concerns and risk of inconsistent rulings. (Mot. pp. 8-9.)

In opposition, the Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration turns largely on Warner Park’s Operating Agreement, which Oberlander, Martin, Silvi Kopytov and Woodland Hills Recovery are not parties to. (Opp. p. 2.) The Plaintiffs argue that the non-overlapping claims and issues should be severed. (Opp. pp. 3-5.)

Here, the issues involved in the JAMS arbitration are related to the issues in front of this Court. The Plaintiffs assert that Kopytov and his wife, Silvi Kopytov, and Warner Park COO Oberlander and Warner Park Director of Admissions Martin have acted together to appropriate Warner Park assets to start Woodland Hills Recovery. Resolution of the issues as they pertain to Kopytov, who is alleged to have recruited the other individual defendants, will certainly influence the outcome of those same issues for Kopytov's co-defendants as the Complaint alleges that they acted in conjunction with each other. Whether the Woodland Hills Recovery Center is a competing business will be determined in arbitration. Thus, proceeding with the allegations against Silvi Kopytov, Oberlander, and Martin while the action against Kopytov proceeds in arbitration presents a significant risk of unfairness and result in duplication of effort. Finally, the claims are inextricably intertwined such that severance would only confuse the issues and increase the risk of inconsistent rulings. Thus, a stay is the fairest and most efficient solution to the issues before the Court. 

III. Conclusion

The Motion by Defendants Robert Oberlander, Natalie Martin, Silvi Kopytov and Woodland Hills Recovery Center to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration is GRANTED.