Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 22STCP03920, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling,
please email the clerk at SMCdept26@lacourt.org (and “cc” all
other parties in the same email) no later than 7:30 am on
the day of the hearing, and please notify all other parties in advance that you
will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the
subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and
the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the
tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may
nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the Court may
decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.
2.
For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in
advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to
either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its
discretion.
3. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS
EMAIL (SMCdept26@lacourt.org) FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE
RULING. The Court will not read or
respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
4. IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT
PHYSICAL DISTANCING GOING FORWARD AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY
ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY FOR NON-TRIAL
AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS. Thus, until further
notice, Department 26 strongly encourages telephonic appearances for motion
hearings that do not require the presentation of live testimony.
Case Number: 22STCP03920 Hearing Date: January 10, 2023 Dept: 26
Superior Court of
California
|
sam
burton, Plaintiff, v. keelson
strategic corporation; tercio elite, llc; tercio elite consulting, inc.;
nathanial a. romero; and NICHOLAS
J. MOLINA Defendants. |
Case No.:
22STCP03920 Hearing Date: January 10, 2023 [TENTATIVE] order RE: defendants’ motion to stay pending a determination on defendants’
motion to compel arbitration |
Procedural
Background
On November
1, 2022, Plaintiff Sam Burton (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant breach of
contract action against Defendants Keelson Strategic Corporation, Tercio Elite,
LLC, Tercio Elite Consulting, Inc., Nathanial A. Romero, and Nicholas J. Molina
(collectively “Defendants”). The FAC
asserts seven causes of action for (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of the
Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (3) Fraud, (4) Fraud in the
Inducement, (5) Declaratory Judgment, (6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and (7) Minority
Shareholder Oppression.
On
December 8, 2022, Defendants concurrently filed a motion to compel arbitration
and a motion to stay pending a determination on the motion to compel
arbitration. The motion to compel
arbitration is currently set for April 13, 2023. On December 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed an
opposition. On January 3, 2023,
Defendants filed a reply.
Legal Standard
“Trial courts generally have the inherent power to
stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial
efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of
Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) A stay of proceedings is an equitable remedy,
the issuance of which rests in the Court's discretion. (Webster v. Superior Court (1988)
46 Cal.3d 338, 345.)
Discussion
Here, a stay is mandated
by statute under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4. Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 provides
in relevant part:
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.
(CCP
§ 1281.4.)
“This statute is clear and unambiguous: it
requires that the trial court stay an action pending before it while an
application to arbitrate the subject matter of the action is pending in a court
of competent jurisdiction.” (Twentieth
Century Fox Film Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 188,
192.)
Here, there is a pending motion to arbitrate
all claims of the instant action that Defendants concurrently filed with the
instant motion. As Defendants have concurrently
moved to stay the instant action pending the hearing on the motion to compel
arbitration, the Court is required to stay the instant action.
In opposition, Plaintiff fails to provide
any basis for the Court to deny the request for stay. Rather, Plaintiff’s opposition focuses on
whether the claims in the instant action are subject to arbitration. (Opp. at pp.5-9.) This argument is irrelevant as to the instant
motion to stay. The second paragraph of Code
of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 requires the court to stay an action upon
motion of a party if there is a pending undecided motion to compel arbitration
until such motion is decided. Thus, the Court
must grant the instant motion to stay pending determination of Defendants’ motion
to compel arbitration.
CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
Based on the forgoing, Defendants Keelson Strategic Corporation, Tercio Elite,
LLC, Tercio Elite Consulting, Inc., Nathanial A. Romero, and Nicholas J.
Molina’s motion to stay the action pending a determination of Defendants’
motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.
The instant action is stayed pending
determination of Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure section 1281.4.
Moving Parties are to provide notice and
file proof of service of such.
DATED: January 10, 2023 ___________________________
Elaine
Lu
Judge
of the Superior Court