Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case 18SMCV00290 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 18SMCV00290, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18SMCV00290 Hearing Date: April 20, 2023 Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiff J.H. McCormick, Inc. dba McCormick Construction Co. (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant 2834 Colorado Avenue, LLC (“Defendant”) stemming from the construction of a commercial building in Santa Monica, California. Plaintiff acted as the general contractor for the project and recorded a mechanic’s lien against the Project. Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action asserts one cause of action for foreclosure of that lien. The construction of the subject commercial building has spawned multiple lawsuits, which have been related to this action. The claims asserted by the various parties involved in the construction have been submitted to arbitration, which remains pending and is currently set for hearing in August 2023.

By stipulation of the parties, this action was ordered stayed on February 22, 2019, pending the completion of these arbitration proceedings. Plaintiff now moves the Court to set a trial date on its claim for foreclosure of mechanic’s lien and for an order requiring the parties to complete arbitration by September 30, 2023. Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion. Church & Larsen, Inc., a party to one of the related actions, has joined Plaintiff’s motion.

Legal Standard

“Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.8 gives the trial court the authority, on petition by a party to the arbitration, to set a date by which the arbitration proceeding must be concluded. Although the better practice is to set the date when the case is first ordered to arbitration, the court has discretion to entertain a petition to set a completion date while the arbitration is in progress.” (Bosworth v. Whitmore (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 536, 539.)

Analysis

Plaintiff asks the Court to set a trial date on its cause of action for foreclosure of mechanics lien asserted in its Complaint in this action. Defendant does not articulate any opposition to that request. Plaintiff also asks the Court to enter an order requiring the arbitration of this action to be completed by September 30, 2023, which Defendant opposes.

It is undisputed that the subject arbitration is currently set for August 14-30, 2023, and the five-year statute to bring Plaintiff’s claim to trial does not expire until June 2024. As such, there does not appear to be any need for the Court to impose a deadline for conclusion of the arbitration. It appears from Plaintiff’s moving papers that it is concerned Defendant may seek a continuance of the arbitration hearing, however, it does not appear Defendant has sought such a continuance. Plaintiff is in essence asking the Court to issue an order barring Defendant from seeking a continuance in the arbitration proceeding or barring the arbitrators from granting such a request.

The appropriateness of any such hypothetical request for continuance is not properly before the Court at this time because in the absence of such a request, this issue is not ripe for determination. “The ripeness requirement, a branch of the doctrine of justiciability, prevents courts from issuing purely advisory opinions.” (Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Com. (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158, 170; Hunt v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 984, 998 [courts are barred from “considering a hypothetical state of facts in order to give general guidance rather than to resolve a specific legal dispute”].) A trial court is thus not required to decide “issues based on hypothetical facts or speculative future events.” (In re Marriage of Carpenter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 424, 429.) To the extent Defendant has refused to stipulate to stay or extend the five-year statute for Plaintiff to bring its claims to trial, the arbitration panel can properly consider that fact in determining the extent to which any continuance of the arbitration proceeding would prejudice Plaintiff. However, in the absence of any request from Defendant to continue the arbitration proceeding, the Court declines to rule that such a request is categorically improper or meritless.

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to set trial on its claim for foreclosure of mechanic’s lien asserted in its Complaint. Trial on that claim will be set at the hearing on this motion in consultation with counsel. Plaintiff’s request for an order requiring the parties to complete their arbitration proceedings by September 30, 2023, is DENIED as moot.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s request to set a trial date in this action is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for an order requiring arbitration to be completed by September 30, 2023, is DENIED.