Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV04190, Date: 2023-02-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04190    Hearing Date: February 15, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: G. Cresswell Templeton III (“Templeton”)

The Court has considered the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b).

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiffs’ complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of contract; (4) restitution based on quasi-contract and unjust enrichment; (5) restitution based on quasi-contract and unjust enrichment; (6) rescission; (7) rescission; (8) breach of contract; (9) breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing; (10) breach of fiduciary duty; (11) demand under Corporations Code section 17704.10 to obtain tax returns and to inspect records under Corporations Code section 17701.13; (12) breach of contract; (13) restitution based on quasi-contract and unjust enrichment; (14) rescission; (15) breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing; (16) breach of fiduciary duty; (17) breach of fiduciary duty; (18) demand under Corporations Code section 17704.10 to obtain tax returns and to inspect records under Corporations Code section 17701.13; (19) fraud; (20) accounting; and (21) account stated.

On August 5, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration and ordered that Plaintiffs’ claims except for the first, second, and fourth through seventh causes of action be adjudicated in arbitration proceedings.  The Court stayed the balance of the action pending the conclusion of the arbitration.

On January 17, 2023, Templeton filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Defendant (the “Motion”).  When a court has stayed a lawsuit pending a decision through binding arbitration, the action at law sits in abatement with the trial court retaining merely a vestigial jurisdiction.  (Optimal Markets, Inc. v. Salant (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 912, 923.)  In the interim, the arbitrator takes over and it is the job of the arbitrator, not the court, to resolve all questions needed to determine the controversy.  (Id. at 924.)  The Motion does not set forth a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction to issue a ruling on the merits.  The Court therefore DENIES the Motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

         Dated this 15th day of February 2023