Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 21STCV44574, Date: 2023-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44574    Hearing Date: October 5, 2023    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff National Merchants Association, Inc. (“NMA”) moves this Court for an Order to 1) Return Jurisdiction to the Superior Court and 2) Stay proceeding regarding costs and fees until the related case is resolved.

NMA’s motion to return jurisdiction to the Superior Court and stay proceedings is DENIED.

As the motion is denied, the motion for attorney’s fees and the motion to strike costs are taken off calendar as they are properly before the judicial referee and not this Court.

Defendant shall give notice.

Background

            Plaintiff National Merchants Association, Inc. (“NMA”) provides electronic payment processing solutions to merchants.

On December 8, 2021, NMA initiated this action against CB.

This action is related to Heather Altepeter Vs Ash Patel, et al., LASC Case No. 22STCV29610.

On March 8, 2022, the Court granted CB’s motion to compel judicial reference based on the parties’ “Consent to Judicial Reference” provision in the subject Agreement such that they agreed to submit any and all disputes concerning the Agreement to judicial reference.

On February 6, 2023, NMA dismissed the entire action without prejudice.

On March 30, 2023, CB filed a motion for attorney’s fees and memorandum of costs in both this case and in JAMs. CB filed it with this Court “out of an abundance of caution, as NMA filed its Motion to Strike CB Cal’s memorandum of costs in both JAMs and the Court.” (See Motion for Atty Fees at p. 2.)

On April 27, 2023, NMA also filed a motion to return jurisdiction to the Superior Court and stay proceedings regarding costs and fees.

On May 8, 2023, the Court continued the hearing from May 5, 2023 to June 13, 2023.

On June 13, 2023, the Court posted its tentative ruling online prior to calendar-call.  Since the parties did not submit to the tentative ruling and there was no Judicial Officer sitting on the bench, counsels agreed to continue matters to July 18, 2023 for argument.

On June 23, 2023, Defendant’s counsels submitted two supplemental requests for additional attorney fees. 

On July 11, 2023, the Court reset the Motion to Stay, Motion to Strike, and Motion for Attorney Fees for October 15, 2023. 

The judicial referee has issued a number of orders, the latest of which is July 11, 2023, continuing the hearing until this Court could rule on the pending motions.

Discussion

The Court first addresses NMA’s motion to return jurisdiction to the Superior Court and stay proceedings as the case was referred to judicial reference on March 8, 2022.

NMA argues that the judicial referee was appointed to adjudicate the substantive dispute between the parties that arose out of the merchant marketing and processing agreement (the “Agreement”) between the parties. The Agreement was the basis for granting jurisdiction to the judicial referee. This case has been dismissed. NMA argues that the factual and legal bases of the substantive dispute have shifted to the matter of Heather Altepeter v. Ash Patel, et al., cause number 22STCV29610 (the “Altepeter Case”) and thus back to the Superior Court. The Judicial Referee, NMA contends, is no longer the appropriate forum for hearing and deciding issues in this dispute, including matters related to costs and attorneys’ fees. As such, jurisdiction should be returned to the Superior Court and a determination about who is the “prevailing party” should be stayed and made by the Superior Court when a party actually prevails and the dispute is actually resolved.

However, NMA provides no authority for such an assertion. This case and the Altepeter Case are not consolidated and NMA provides no legal basis for staying the matter of attorney’s fees and costs until the related case is resolved. Further, this case was referred to judicial reference on March 8, 2022 based on the parties’ consent in the Agreement such that they agreed to submit any and all disputes concerning the Agreement to judicial reference. The Court notes that the basis for the attorney’s fees is Civil Code § 1717 which provides for fees under a fee provision in the Agreement. Accordingly, the issue of fees and costs appears to be encompassed within the Agreement and thus a subject for the judicial referee. Further, as CB has pointed out, the referee would be the best person to resolve the issue of fees and costs as they are the most familiar with the issues of this case.

As such, NMA’s motion to return jurisdiction to the Superior Court and stay proceedings is DENIED. As the motion is denied, the motion for attorney’s fees and the motion to strike costs are taken off calendar as they are properly before the judicial referee and not this Court.