Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: SC126172, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: SC126172, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC126172 Hearing Date: October 15, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

180 PCH, LLC v. Saitman, Case no. SC126172

Hearing date October 15, 2024

Defendants’ Motion for Stay of Proceedings or to Continue Trial

Plaintiff sues to establish the limits of an access easement agreement and road grading rights. Defendants now seek to stay the proceedings until conclusion of foreclosure proceedings pending against plaintiff. In the alternative, defendant seeks a 180-day continuance of the trial, set for 12/16/24. Plaintiff opposes a stay but is agreeable to a 60-day continuance.

The complaint was filed 7/22/16, and the FAC was filed 10/17/16. The parties stipulated to stay the action while plaintiff sought approval for development and grading plans from the City of Malibu. The City rejected the plans on 10/4/2021 and 5/9/2022. The court lifted the stay on 9/15/2022 so the parties could adjudicate plaintiff’s grading rights, which plaintiff argues is necessary before it can seek approval for the overall development plans. Decl. Williams ex. B at 2. The parties jointly requested a continuance on 5/8/2023 because a notice of default was recorded against plaintiff and the properties. Decl. Rosen ex. A.

The parties jointly requested a continuance on 9/5/2023 because the assignee of plaintiff’s lender filed a judicial foreclosure action, and the court continued the matter on 1/25/2024. Decl. Rosen ex. C. Plaintiff informed defendant in July 2024 that it wished to move forward with the phase one declaratory relief bench trial due to the limited scope of the trial and the drawn-out nature of the foreclosure action. Plaintiff agreed to a trial continuance to 12/16/2024 so defendant would have time to prepare. Decl. Rosen para. 9.

The Court has the inherent power stay an action. OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 141. “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Id.

Defendants argue plaintiff’s standing to bring the action is uncertain due to the foreclosure; while plaintiff may lose standing in the future, it has standing unless and until it is stripped of its property. Defendants also argue that due to repeated delays, he has not been actively preparing for trial.

The court noted on 9/15/2022 “[Plaintiff] cannot realistically proceed with an application to the City of Malibu without prior adjudication of its grading rights. Practically, these rights must be adjudicated before a plan is submitted, not after submission and approval. The matter is ripe and may proceed.” Min. Order 9/15/2022. The court’s ripeness analysis is not affected by the pending foreclosure action against plaintiff. The issue is ripe, and so long as plaintiff retains standing, the action may proceed.

Defendant asserts the court’s determination of ripeness and standing predate the foreclosure action. Defendant asserts the court’s finding of ripeness was based on the expectation that plaintiff would file new plans with the City for approval. The court’s determination of ripeness acknowledged that plaintiff needed to establish access and grading rights prior to seeking approval from the City. Defendant’s argument that plaintiff does not intend to seek such approval until resolving the foreclosure action is speculative and insufficient to support a continued stay.

Defendant argues plaintiff’s standing is uncertain. Plaintiff is currently the undisputed owner and possessor of the property. Plaintiff notes easements and grading rights run with the property, so, even if plaintiff loses possession of the property, a determination of such rights benefits future owners. Plaintiff may pursue this action, the results of which would run with the land. The issues of access and development rights will persist regardless of who owns the properties.

The parties are bound by a mutual attorney’s fees provision. Defendant argues if the matter is not stayed, and plaintiff subsequently goes bankrupt, he would be unable to recover attorney’s fees. It is speculative as to (1) which party will prevail, (2) whether they would be entitled to fees and (3) whether plaintiff may file bankruptcy at some point in the future. Such speculation cannot be a basis for a stay.

In the alternative, defendant requests a 180-day trial continuance. Plaintiff is amenable to a 60-day continuance. Defendant was made aware of plaintiff’s intentions to go to trial in July 2024. The court granted the joint request to continue the trial from 10/7/24 to 12/16/2024. Decl. Rosenthal para. 9. It does not seem that defendants need an additional six months to be ready for trial in a case that has been ongoing since 2016. The court is inclined to continue the trial date by a period of 120 days to April 2025. Motion to stay is DENIED.