Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV28558, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28558    Hearing Date: April 4, 2023    Dept: 61

Defendants Jennifer Felten, Timothy Camarena, and Neil M. Popowitz’s Motion for Stay is GRANTED.

Defendants to provide notice.

I.                   MOTION TO STAY

“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.) The decision of a trial court to stay proceedings is thus generally a matter of discretion. (Bains v. Moores (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 445, 480.)

Defendants Jennifer Felten, Timothy Camarena, and Neil M. Popowitz (Defendants) move to stay this action pending resolution of another actions launched by Plaintiffs Alla Kutz and Igor Kutz (Plaintiffs) against Mikhail Siretskiy, Big Block Realty, Inc., Cangas Re LLC, and Cal West Escrow — the same persons and entities that Defendants are alleged to have favored in their dealings with Plaintiffs, which dealings form the basis for the present action for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty. (RJN Exh. A.) The case against these other entities addresses the same transactions and damages at issue in the present action: it targets the actions of Siretskiy and others related to the property and the tenants in common agreement that Defendants in the present action are alleged to have facilitated by their failure to properly disclose their conflicts.

[T]rial courts have inherent authority to stay malpractice suits, holding them in abeyance pending resolution of underlying litigation. The liberal use of tolling agreements and stays in malpractice cases may reduce the impact on the underlying litigation, ensure that plaintiffs do not have their claims prematurely barred, protect defendants' and defendants' insurers' interests in receiving timely notice and avoiding stale claims, and allow current counsel, to the extent practicable, to continue to work to ameliorate the consequences of any past mistakes. Current counsel will have considerable incentive to do so, as any mitigation will reduce their own potential future liability.

(Beal Bank, SSB v. Arter & Hadden, LLP (2007) 42 Cal.4th 503, 513–514, citations and quotation marks omitted.) Defendants also argue that this matter should be stayed because any damages award entered prior to the resolution of the other action would be speculative, as Plaintiffs seek the return of the same $349,000 investment in both actions, meaning a recovery of those damages in both actions would constitute an impermissible double recovery. (Motion at p. 14; Complaint ¶ 29; RJN Exh. A, ¶ 55.)

A stay is proper here. The two cases concern the same subject matter, transaction, and damages. The other action was filed on April 12, 2022, months before the present action was filed, and to proceed in this action concurrently with the other would risk conflicting rulings on similar matters of law and fact. Plaintiffs have not opposed the present motion.

The motion for stay is GRANTED.