Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV25320, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25320    Hearing Date: February 14, 2025    Dept: 52

Tentative Ruling:

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant State National Insurance Company, Inc.’s Motion to Stay Proceedings

Plaintiff/cross-defendant State National Insurance Company, Inc. (State National) moves to stay the entire second amended cross-complaint by defendants/cross-complainants Chateau Nob Hill Apartments, LP and Global Integrity Realty Corporation. 

Last year, cross-defendants Lynberg & Watkins, Lane Webb, and Rebecca Kurtz filed a special motion to strike the first amended cross-complaint.  On October 9, 2024, the court denied the motion on the basis that the causes of action did not arise from protected activity.  The court did not proceed to analyze whether cross-complainants showed a probability of prevailing on the merits.  On October 21, cross-complainants filed a second amended cross-complaint.  On November 7, Lynberg & Watkins, Webb, and Kurtz filed a notice of appeal of the court’s order denying their anti-SLAPP motion. 

State National argues the pending appeal automatically stayed the second amended cross-complaint as against all parties, not just the appellants.  In the alternative, State National argues the court should issue a discretionary stay.  The court will exercise its discretion to stay the entire second amended cross-complaint.  The court therefore does not reach the issue of whether the automatic stay applies.

Courts have “ ‘inherent power … 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.)  “ ‘[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.’ ”  (Ibid.)  “Even when the statutes do not call for an automatic stay on appeal, the trial and appellate courts both have the power to issue discretionary stays.”  (Daly v. San Bernardino County Bd. of Supervisors (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1030, 1039.)

The court finds that staying the entire second amended cross-complaint will serve the interests of justice and judicial economy.  The claims against State National are largely intertwined with those against the appellants.  If the Court of Appeal affirms this court’s order, a substantial portion of the litigation against State National may have to be redone so the appellants can participate.  If the Court of Appeal reverses this court’s order, that still might not result in judgment of dismissal in favor of the appealing cross-defendants.  The Court of Appeal could hold that some, but not all, of the first amended cross-complaint’s causes of action arise from protected activity.  Several of the potential outcomes on appeal could make it highly inefficient for cross-complainants to litigate their claims against State National now without the other cross-defendants.

Disposition

            Plaintiff/cross-defendant State National Insurance Company, Inc.’s motion to stay proceedings is granted.  The court hereby stays the entire second amended cross-complaint as against all cross-defendants.