Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV12550, Date: 2025-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV12550    Hearing Date: January 3, 2025    Dept: 74

Marquez v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.

Defendants Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC; Richard Flanagan; Gerardo Ornelas; Mario Calderon; and Valencia Price’s Motion to Stay Proceedings.

BACKGROUND 

            This motion arises from an employment dispute.

            Plaintiff Gabriela Marquez (Plaintiff) alleges that defendants Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC; Lowe’s Company, Inc.; Richard Flanagan; Gerardo Ornelas; Mario Calderon; and Valencia Price (collectively Defendants) discriminated against Plaintiff, retaliated against Plaintiff and ultimately terminated Plaintiff.  Plaintiff also alleges that this conduct breached her employment contract.

            Lowe’s Company, Inc was dismissed on December 20, 2024.

            On November 8, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and a Motion to Stay Proceedings pending the resolution of the Motion to Compel Arbitration and any mandatory arbitration.

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.)¿¿ 

DISCUSSION

            Defendants have filed a joint Motion to Compel Arbitration in this matter. If the court grants that motion, arbitration will involve Plaintiff and all Defendants. California Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 provides for a stay until the motion to compel arbitration is heard. 

            Plaintiff has not opposed the stay.

CONCLUSION

            The Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Stay.

            Defendants to give notice.