Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 20CHCV00305, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20CHCV00305    Hearing Date: May 17, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 5-17-24

Case #20CHCV00305 , Adela Mercado, et al. vs. Alan Ulloa, et al.

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Adela Mercado, Francisco Munoz, Hyun Sook Lim, Jorge Ochoa, and Ildeliza Ochoa

RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiffs are requesting that the Court stay all proceedings pending their appeal.

RULING: Motion to stay is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiffs Adela Mercado, Francisco, Munoz, Hyun Sook Lim, Jorge Ochoa, and Ildeliza Ochoa (Plaintiffs) filed this action on May 18, 2020. One of the Defendants sued by Plaintiffs was San Francisco Townhomes Association. On November 1, 2023, San Francisco Townhomes’ motion for summary judgment was granted. After the motion was granted, Defendants Golden State Claims Adjusters; Anchor Prime Builders, Inc.; Rober Lazo; Ramon Ulloa; and Jose Pablo Ulloa Reyes remain as defendants in this case. On December 22, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal for the Court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment.

On January 8, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion to stay all proceedings pending the appeal. No opposition has been filed to Plaintiffs’ motion.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs filed this motion pursuant to CCP § 916(a). That section provides:

“Except as provided in Sections 917.1 to 917.9, inclusive, and in Section 116.810, the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.”

(CCP § 916(a).)

The purpose of the automatic stay provision of section 916(a) “is to protect the appellate court's jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided.” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Deffino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189.) “The [automatic stay] prevents the trial court from rendering an appeal futile by altering the appealed judgment or order by conducting other proceedings that may affect it.” (Elsea v. Saberi (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 625, 629.)

“To accomplish this purpose, section 916, subdivision (a) stays all further trial court proceedings ‘upon the matters embraced’ in or ‘affected’ by the appeal. In determining whether a proceeding is embraced in or affected by the appeal, we must consider the appeal and its possible outcomes in relation to the proceeding and its possible results. ‘W]hether a matter is ‘embraced’ in or ‘affected’ by a judgment [or order] within the meaning of [section 916] depends on whether postjudgment [or postorder] proceedings on the matter would have any effect on the ‘effectiveness’ of the appeal.’ (Citation.) ‘If so, the proceedings are stayed; if not, the proceedings are permitted.’ (Citation.)” (Varian, 35 Cal.4th at 189.)

Plaintiffs argue in their motion that if the action is not stayed, then important aspects of trial preparation would be affected, and they would need to do duplicative discovery if the Court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment is reversed. They argue that it would be simplest and most cost-effective to do discovery for all defendants at the same time.

Based on the automatic stay provision in CCP § 916(a), this action is stayed pending appeal.

Plaintiffs’ motion to stay all proceedings is granted. The Court will set an appeal status hearing, with the date to be determined at the hearing on this motion.

Moving party to give notice to all parties.