Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 23SMCV00616, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV00616, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00616 Hearing Date: February 14, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Fellows et al. v. Pilgrim Media Group LLC, Case No. 23SMCV00616

Hearing Date February 14, 2024

Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Order Clarifying that no Stay is in Effect

Plaintiffs’ decedent died while participating a reality tv series about street racing. Plaintiffs allege defendant producers were negligent, causing the accident and death. On December 7, 2023 the court denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, finding defendants waived their right to arbitrate due to unreasonable delay and substantial invocation of the litigation machinery. Defendants appealed, filing a notice of automatic stay pending appeal on December 11, 2023.

Plaintiffs move for an order seeking to clarify that, pursuant to new legislation, no stay is in effect. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1294, which effect January 1, 2024, states perfecting an appeal from an order denying a motion to compel arbitration “shall not stay any proceedings in the trial court during the pendency of the appeal.”

Though denial of defendants’ motion and the filing of the appeal took place before §1294 took effect, plaintiffs argue the statute applies under Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn’s LLC (2006) 39 Cal.4th 223, 231-233, and the stay should be lifted.

There is a strong legal presumption that new statutes are not retroactive absent strong textual evidence to the contrary. Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188. This presumption exists to protect “the right to have liability-creating conduct evaluated under the liability rules in effect at the time the conduct occurred.” Californians, supra, 39 Cal. 4th at 233.

When new law is applied to a pending case, application is impermissibly retroactive if “it would improperly have changed the legal consequences of past conduct by imposing new or different liabilities based on such conduct.” Id. at 231.

A statute that does not impose new liability for past conduct or substantially affect existing rights and obligations, but instead establishes new rules for the conduct of litigation going forward, can be applied to existing cases without violating the presumption against retroactivity because “the effect of such statutes is actually prospective in nature since they relate to the procedure to be followed in the future.” Id.

There is no language regarding retroactivity in §1294 or evidence suggesting its drafters intended it to apply retroactively. Plaintiffs acknowledge this but argue that applying the statute and lifting the stay would not be improperly retroactive. They cite Californians, arguing §1294 does not impose new liability for past conduct or affect either party’s substantive rights, but sets forth new procedural rules for conduct of the litigation moving forward.

Defendants argue applying §1294 would be impermissibly retroactive, citing Dillon v. Superior Court (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 437, 438. That court held a statute changing a trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction cannot be applied to pending litigation, concluding “in cases of statutory change of jurisdiction, in the absence of a clearly expressed intention to the contrary, every statute will be held to operate prospectively rather than retrospectively.” Id. at 439.

Defendants argue applying §1294 would restore jurisdiction to the court, which lost jurisdiction after the appeal was filed. They argue this violates Dillon’s rule against retroactivity “in cases of statutory change of jurisdiction.”

Californians does not cite Dillon, but implicitly rejects its holding regarding statutory changes in jurisdiction. Californians defined retroactivity, setting forth two categories of legislation that cannot be applied to pending litigation: statutes that either (1) impose new consequences for past conduct or (2) substantially affect existing rights. Californians, contra Dillon, did not state statutes affecting a change in jurisdiction cannot be applied to pending litigation.

As Californians is a recent Supreme Court case, this court will apply its standard for retroactive application. A statute changing jurisdiction can be applied to a pending case as long as it does not alter the legal consequences of prior conduct or deprive a party of a substantive right that existed before the statute was passed. Additionally, Dillon is not analogous. The statute at issue there stripped jurisdiction from the court hearing the pending case. Section1294 does not strip this court of jurisdiction. Dillon does not apply.

Section 1294 does not impose new liability for past conduct; it is procedural. The elements plaintiffs must prove, the damages available and defenses all remain the same. Section 1294 does not affect the potential legal consequences of the conduct underlying this case.

Finally, although defendants argue otherwise, §1294 does not deprive them of their substantive right to attempt to pursue arbitration. Defendants may continue to pursue all appellate rights, and the issues they must establish on appeal have not been altered. All that has changed is the procedure the trial court will follow while that appeal is pending. The discovery stay is no longer in place due to the statute, and the court declines to impose a discretionary stay, as doing so would foil the purpose of §1294. GRANTED.