Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV26362, Date: 2023-03-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26362    Hearing Date: March 6, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY:  Defendants (collectively, “Moving Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

            This matter arises out of an employment relationship.  The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivisions (b) and (c); (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (3) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200; (4) failure to provide personnel records in violation of Labor Code section 1198.5; (5) failure to provide wage statements in violation of Labor Code section 226, subdivision (b); and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On September 30, 2022, Moving Defendants removed this matter to federal court.  On December 8, 2022, the United States District Court for the Central District issued a remand order (the “Remand Order”).  Moving Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal from the Remand Order on January 6, 2023.  (Declaration of Ayan K. Jacobs (“Jacobs Decl.”) ¶ 6, Exhibit F.)  The Ninth Circuit issued an order on February 2, 2023, stating that a review of the record “suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because an order remaining a removed action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not reviewable ‘on appeal or otherwise.’”  The Circuit Court therefore ordered that within 21 days of the date of its order Moving Defendants either filed a dismissal of the appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  On February 23, 2023, Moving Defendants filed a memorandum regarding the appealability of the removal order and Plaintiff has until March 6, 2023 to file a response. 

On February 8, 2023, Moving Defendants filed a motion to stay this matter pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of their appeal of the Remand Order (the “Motion”).  Alternatively, the Motion requests that the matter be stayed pending the Court’s resolution of Moving Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration (the “Arbitration Motion”), which has a hearing date set on March 16, 2023. 

DISCUSSION

            A court ordinarily has inherent power, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice.  (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 141.)  The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the cause on its docket with the economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.  (Id.)  Even when the statutes do not call for an automatic stay on appeal, the trial and appellate courts both have the power to issue discretionary stays.  (Daly v. San Bernardino County Bd. of Supervisors (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1030, 1039.)

California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1281.4 provides: if an application has been made to a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, for an order to arbitrate a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State and such application is undetermined, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until the application for an order to arbitrate is determined and, if arbitration of such controversy is ordered, until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.  (CCP § 1281.4.)

Under the circumstances and in light of the Ninth Circuit’s doubts over its jurisdiction over the appeal of the Remand Order, the Court declines to issue a discretionary appeal pending the resolution of the Remand Order.  Because Moving Defendants contend that this matter is subject to binding arbitration, however, the Court GRANTS the Motion in part and orders that the matter be stayed pending the resolution of the Arbitration Motion on March 16, 2023.  (See CCP § 1281.4.)

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.           

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 6th day of March 2023