Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV15379, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15379    Hearing Date: March 21, 2024    Dept: 14

Guffey v Rokit

Case Background

This is a combination class and PAGA action in which Plaintiffs allege violations of wage and hour laws.

On October 24, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) Willful Misclassification, (2) Failure to Pay Wages, (3) Failure to Provide Meal Breaks, (4) Willful Misclassification, (5) Failure to Pay Wages, (6) Failure to Provide Meal Breaks, (7) Failure to Provide Rest Breaks, (8) Waiting Time Penalties, (9) Failure to Provide Sick Leave, (10) Failure to Provide Wage Statements, (11) Failure to Maintain Accurate Records, (12) Failure to Provide Copies of Signed Documents, (13) Failure to Reimburse, (14) Unfair Competition, (15) PAGA Violations against Defendants Rokit Inc., Rokit Drinks LLC, Rokit Imports Inc., Rokit Drinks Imports Inc., Rokit Drinks Resources Inc., Rokit Distillery Inc. (collectively “Rokit”), Rokit Launch, Inc., Rokit Launch Resources, Inc. (collectively “Launch”), Daniel Lewis (“Lewis”), Jonathan Kendrick (“Kendrick”), Dean Becker (“Becker”), and DOES 1-10.

Defendant Kendrick has not yet been served.

On December 16, 2022, this court granted a motion to compel arbitration filed by Defendants Rokit, Lewis, and Becker. The court ordered the case stayed pending arbitration.

On June 8, 2023, this court vacated the order compelling Plaintiff Jeffrey Moore (“Moore”) to arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.98. The court also lifted the stay on Plaintiff Moore’s claims.

On October 17, 2023, this court vacated the order compelling Plaintiff Jack Guffey (“Guffey”) to arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.98. The court also lifted the stay on Plaintiff Guffey’s claims.

On the same date, this court ordered Plaintiffs to fill out the Complex Civil Case Questionnaire and seek admission to the court’s Complex Litigation Program pursuant to Local Rule 3.3(k)(6). On October 26, 2023, Plaintiffs did so. On November 1, 2023, Judge David S. Cunningham III reviewed the Questionnaire and denied the case admission to the Complex Litigation Program. The case remains assigned to this department.

No trial date is currently set.

Instant Motion

            Plaintiffs now move this court for an order compelling Defendants Rokit, Lewis, and Becker to post an appellate bond in the amount of $675,881.24.

Decision

            The motion is DENIED.

Discussion

            If a party wishes to appeal a decision made by this court, this court is obliged not to interfere with the proceedings on appeal. For this purpose, the legislature enacted Code of Civil Procedure § 916, which provides, in relevant part:

“[T]he perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.”

In this instance, the orders appealed from are three fee orders made by this court when the case was returned from arbitration.

            There are certain exceptions to Section 916, which are contained in Code of Civil Procedure §§ 917.1 through 917.9. Many of those provisions contain ways that an appellant can avoid the particular exception at issue; for example, Section 917.1 excepts money judgments, but qualifies the exception with the words “unless an undertaking is given.”

            This trial court only has reason to apply these sections if the appellant makes a motion for a stay, or else opposes an enforcement measure on the grounds that there is a stay. The court does not go looking for disputes to resolve. And the same principle of non-interference that animates Section 916 also prevents this court from ordering an appellant to post a bond simply because they have appealed.

Only the appellate court (if anyone) can direct Defendants to post a bond as a condition of their appeal. This court can only direct Defendants to post a bond as a condition of a stay, which Defendants have not asked for. In the absence of any request for a stay from Defense, the court declines Plaintiff’s invitation to offer an advisory opinion on whether a stay is or would be proper here. The court also declines to offer an advisory opinion on the outcome of any enforcement attempts.

Conclusion

            This court can only impose an appellate bond as a condition of a stay. No stay has been requested by the interested party, therefore this court cannot require the posting of a bond. The court expresses no opinion on the propriety of a stay or the application of Sections 916-917.9 to this case. The court expresses no opinion on the outcome of any effort to enforce the court’s fee orders. The motion is DENIED.