Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22STCV12473, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV12473 Hearing Date: November 13, 2023 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: November 13, 2023 TRIAL DATE: No date set.
CASE: AMBER WARD, an
individual; ALEXEE DUNCAN, an individua; RIO ODELL, an individual; GENESIS
CASTRO, an individual, v. ZEUS NETWORK, LLC, a limited liability corporation;
JOSELINE HERNANDEZ, an individual; BALLISTIC aka RICARDO LAMARRE, an
individual; and DOES 1 to 10.
CASE NO.: 22STCV12473
MOTION
FOR RELIEF
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Rio Odell
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant
Zeus Networks, LLC
SERVICE: Filed September 19, 2023
OPPOSITION: Filed October 30, 2023
REPLY: Filed October 31, 2023
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Plaintiff seeks an order setting
aside this court’s order compelling arbitration.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiffs’ Amber
Ward, Alexee Duncan, Rio Odell, and Genesis Castro’s (“Plaintiffs”) claims that
they were subjected unlawful conduct during the filming of a reality television
show. Plaintiffs filed this complaint on April 13, 2022, alleging seven causes
of action for (1) assault, (2) battery, (3) false imprisonment, (4) intentional
infliction of emotional distress, (5) negligence, (6) Bane Act violations, and
(7) unlawful business practice.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s
motion for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision
(b), is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff
moves for an order granting relief from this court’s order compelling
arbitration. On September 6, 2023, this court heard Defendant’s motion for an
order compelling Plaintiff to submit this claim to binding arbitration. There
were no appearances recorded for Plaintiff, and this court granted Defendant’s
motion.
“Section 473(b) provides for both discretionary and
mandatory relief. [Citation.]” (Pagnini v. Union Bank, N.A. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th
298, 302.) The discretionary relief provisions of Code of Civil Procedure
section 473, subd. (b) provide in relevant part: “The court may, upon any terms
as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a
judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her
through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”
Plaintiff seeks relief from this court’s order on the grounds that
her counsel experienced issues using the Court’s remote connection system.
Plaintiff provides counsel attempted to connect through by video conference but
was unable to connect. (Von Kessler Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff provides her counsel used the backup phone
conference number but that the court was not able to hear counsel speak. (Id.
¶¶ 5-6.)
Plaintiff’s counsel asserts that he was
present at the hearing but unable to make an appearance based on technical
issues. Plaintiff seeks an opportunity to be heard and seeks relief from the
previous order. The court will provide Plaintiff’s counsel the opportunity to be
heard regarding its opposition to Defendant’s motion. However, because the court’s
previous tentative ruling granted Defendant’s motion was not taken against him
due to his lack of appearance, Plaintiff’s motion for relief of that order is
tentatively denied. Plaintiff will be allowed to present arguments in
opposition to Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration at the hearing for this
present motion, but unless Plaintiff is able to demonstrate why arbitration
should not be compelled, this court’s order will stand.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s
motion for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision
(b), is DENIED.
Dated: November 13,
2023 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton