Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV34645, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV34645    Hearing Date: January 17, 2025    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:     January 17, 2025                               TRIAL DATE:  Not set

CASE:                         Prospect Park, LLC, et al.  v. Azealia Banks, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV34645

PLAINTIFFS AND CROSS-DEFENDANTS JEFF KWATINETZ AND PROSPECT PARK LLC’S MOTION TO PARTIALLY LIFT STAY AS TO CLAIMS OTHER THAN THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS PENDING APPEAL FROM DENIAL AZEALIA BANKS’S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIK UNDER C.C.P. § 425.16

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: STATUS OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Jeff Kwatinetz and Prospect Park, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:     Defendant and Cross-Complainant Azealia Banks

I.          INTRODUCTION

This action arises from the deterioration of a business relationship between Jeff Kwatinetz (“Kwatinetz”), founder and manager of music production company, Prospect Park, LLC, and Azealia Banks (“Banks”), a recording artist and rapper.  

            On September 20, 2021, Kwatinetz and Prospect Park, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), initiated this action against Banks and Lasagna Girl, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”).  The operative is the First Amended Complaint (FAC).  The FAC alleged the causes of action for (1) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (2) Interference with Contractual Relations; (3) Defamation; (4) Trade Libel; (5) Stalking in Violation of California Civil Code Section 1708.7; (6) Invasion of Privacy; (7) Civil Extortion, and (8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

Procedural History

            On November 14, 2023, Banks filed a Special Motion to Strike Pursuant to C.C.P § 425.16 to the Eighth Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress in the FAC. The motion was denied on April 30, 2024.

            On May 2, 2024, Banks filed a Notice of Appeal of the court’s April 30, 2024, order. 

            On May 3, 2024, the court stayed the entire action pending resolution of Banks’s appeal.

            On July 18, 2024, a Notice of Default was issued as to Banks’s appeal.

            On August 13, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion to partially lift the stay as to all causes of action not embraced by Banks’s appeal.  The hearing was continued to September 6, 2024.

            On September 6, 2024, after oral argument, the court continued the hearing on the motion to October 8, 2024, to allow the Court of Appeal to determine the status of the appeal.

On September 23, 2024, the court granted Defendants’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel. 

            On September 24, 2024, the Second District Court of Appeal granted Banks’s motion for relief from default. 

            On October 8, 2024, after oral argument, the court continued the hearing on the motion and directed Plaintiffs to file a status report regarding the appeal.

            On October 17, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a status report indicating Banks’s opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss the appeal is due by October 18, 2024, and further, that Banks’s counsel also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel in the appeal.

            The motion was heard on October 22, 2024.  Based on Plaintiffs’ status report, the court continued the hearing for the motion to December 10, 2024, pending resolution of the issues in the Court of Appeal.  At Plaintiffs’ request, the court set an OSC regarding status of counsel for Defendants for December 10, 2024.

            On November 7, 2024, the Court of Appeal denied Banks’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel and denied Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the appeal.

            On December 4, 2024, Defendants filed a substitution of attorney.

The court now rules as follows.

II.        DISCUSSION & LEGAL STANDARD

The court previously issued orders stating an intent to deny Plaintiffs motion to lift the stay because Banks’s appeal embraces or affects more than Plaintiffs’ Eighth Cause of Action for IIED.  It is well settled law that an appeal of ruling denying a special motion to strike automatically “stays all further trial court proceedings on the merits upon the causes of action affected by the motion.” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 186.)  The court need not belabor the point further.

Nonetheless, the court continued the hearing pending resolution of Banks’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel and Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the appeal.  The Court of Appeal has denied those respective motions.  The appeal is moving forward.  Accordingly, another continuance of Plaintiffs’ motion is unnecessary.  The court now denies Plaintiffs’ motion. 

III.      CONCLUSION

The Motion to Partially Lift the Stay is DENIED.  The stay remains in effect.

Pursuant to the Substitution of Attorney filed on December 4, 2024, the Order to Show Cause re: Status of Counsel for Defendants is DISCHARGED.

Defendants to give notice.

Dated:   January 17, 2025