Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr., Case: 23SMCV06074, Date: 2024-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV06074    Hearing Date: August 8, 2024    Dept: 205

 

 

 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BEN SAMOUHA, et al.,  

 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

 

KERENDIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC., et al.,  

 

Defendants. 

 

  Case No.:  23SMCV06074 

  

  Hearing Date:  August 8, 2024 

  [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: 

  PLAINTIFF BEN SAMOUHA’S MOTION  

  FOR STAY 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

  This is a legal malpractice case.  Plaintiffs Ben Samouha and Guadalupe Real-Property & Investments, LLC retained Defendants Kerendian & Associates Inc., Shahbod Kerendian, Tom Tran and Edrin Shamtob as their attorneys.  Defendants represented Plaintiffs in legal proceedings against Pegasus Investments Real Estate Advisory Inc. (“Pegasus”).   

Defendants filed Guadalupe v. Pegasus (LASC Case No. 21SMCV00133) (the “Underlying Action”) in Los Angeles Superior Court.  Guadalupe was the sole plaintiff in the action.   

Pegasus moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Guadalupe does not have standing to bring the action.  It argued that Samouha and Pegasus were the only signatories on the agreement between the parties, and Guadalupe did not exist when the agreement was signed.  As such, according to Pegasus, Guadalupe did not have standing to bring claims against Pegasus. 

The trial court in the Underlying Action granted Pegasus’ motion for summary judgment.  The trial court also awarded sanctions and costs against Guadalupe in excess of $20,000. 

Guadalupe filed an appeal in the Underlying Action in the Second Appellate District (Appellate Case Number B326984).  The appeal is pending.   

Pegasus filed a malicious prosecution claim against Guadalupe in Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC Case No. 23STCV06022.)  The claim seeks more than $100,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs.       

Plaintiffs now move to stay this case pending resolution of the appeal in the Underlying Action.  Plaintiffs argue that the appeal will materially affect the value of the case, and staying the proceedings will prevent inconsistent results.   

Defendants oppose the motion and request that the Court resolve their pending demurrer before issuing an order on this motion to stay. 

DISCUSSION 

Defendants oppose the motion for stay, arguing that they have a pending demurrer on statute of limitations grounds (which is unrelated to the issues on appeal), and the Court should decide the demurrer first, as it may resolve the need for a stay.  The Court agrees.   

Code Civ. Proc. § 128 states in relevant part:  

  1. Every court shall have the power to do all of the following:  

* * * 

(3) To provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers. . . .  

* * * 

(8) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice . . . . (Code Civ. Proc. § 128, subd. (a)(3), (8).)  

 

A trial court thus has the “inherent authority and responsibility to fairly and efficiently administer the judicial proceedings before it.” (California Crane School, Inc. v. National Com. for Certification of Crane Operators (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 12, 22, emphasis added.) “This authority includes the power to . . . guard against inept procedures and unnecessary indulgences that tend to delay the conduct of its proceedings.”  (Id.)  

Here, Defendants have recently filed a demurrer to the Complaint, set for hearing on August 23, 2024.  The demurrer argues that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the one-year limitations period under Code Civ. Proc. § 340.6.  The outcome of the appeal of the Underlying Action has no bearing on the limitations issue.  Delaying resolution of this simple issue pending resolution of the appeal of the Underlying Action would prejudice Defendants’ right to have time barred claims asserted against them promptly dismissed.   

Resolving the statute of limitations at the outset would further the important public policy goals that are served by time-based defenses: Statutes of limitations serve the important public purpose of promoting stability and security in human affairs by preventing plaintiffs from asserting stale claims based on evidence no longer fresh and witnesses no longer available. [Citation]. The policy behind statutes of limitations is as meritorious as the policy of trying cases on their merits.”  (Krusesky v. Baugh (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 562, 566; see also Quarry v. Doe I (2012) 53 Cal.4th 945, 990 (reiterating that statutes of limitations reflect the Legislature’s desire to afford repose).)  

Furthermore, efficient administration of this action requires the Demurrer to be decided first.  There is no need to stay this action if Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred in the first instance.  Code Civ. Proc. section 128 empowers the Court to avoid such a wasteful outcome. (See Las Canoas Co., Inc. v. Kramer (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 96, 100 (noting that, under some circumstances, [“[t]o defer [a timely] determination to a later, separate proceeding would be impractical and inefficient and would undermine the trial court’s necessary authority under section 128”].)   

Moreover, in the event the Court does not sustain the Demurrer, it could thereafter rule on the Motion to Stay in short order. Thus, Defendants’ requested order of proceedings poses no risk of judicial waste or prejudice to Plaintiffs.  

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court CONTINUES until August 23, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. the hearing on this motion to stay court proceedings pending the conclusion of the appeal in the Underlying Action.   

DATED: August 8, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court