Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 9STCV00228, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 9STCV00228    Hearing Date: January 17, 2025    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc.’s motion to stay this matter pending the California Supreme Court’s ruling on Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209, 222-223, is denied.

Defendant a Motors America, Inc. (“KA”) (“Defendant”) moves to stay this action pending the California Supreme Court’s ruling on Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209, 222-223.  (Notice Motion, pg. 2.)

Background

On December 12, 2023, this Court denied Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  At the hearing on Defendant’s motion, this Court declined to follow Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 209, 222-223, because at the time it was non-binding, persuasive authority.

Defendant filed the instant motion on September 24, 2024.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition on January 6, 2025.  Defendant filed its reply on January 10, 2025.

On October 31, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189.

Discussion

Courts have broad discretion to stay cases in the interest of efficiency and justice. Every court has the “inherent power, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice.”  (See St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. AmerisourceBergen Corp. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1, 6-7.)  The Code of Civil Procedure further empowers every court to “provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it.” (C.C.P. §128(a)(3); see C.C.P. §187 [conferring on courts and judicial officers “all the means necessary” to carry out their jurisdiction].)

Here, a stay is not warranted.  The California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Rodriguez on October 31, 2024.  There is no reason for this Court to delay this action.  Should Defendants need to file any motions in light of a change of law, any such motion is far more appropriate than the instant one.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to stay this action is denied.

Conclusion

Defendant’s motion to stay this action is denied.

Moving Party to give notice. 

Dated:  January _____, 2025