Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV15222, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15222    Hearing Date: October 13, 2022    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, October 13, 2022

Case Name:                             Nancy Angel v. Roosevelt Hotel, LLC, et al.

Case No.:                                22STCV15222

Motion:                                   Motion to Stay Action Pursuant to CCP § 1284.4

Moving Party:                         Defendants Roosevelt Hotel, LLC (“Roosevelt Hotel”) and Kai Speth (“Speth”) (collectively, “Defendants”)

Responding Party:                   Plaintiff Nancy Angel (“Plaintiff”)

Notice:                                    OK

Rulings                                   The Motion to Stay Action Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1284.4 is GRANTED. 

Defendants to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND

            On May 6, 2022, Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendants alleging the following causes of action: (1) harassment in violation of Government Code §§ 12940, et seq., (2) failure to prevent harassment in violation of Government Code § 12940(k); (3) battery; (4) sexual battery; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (7) negligent supervision and retention; and (8) violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act.

On October 4, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. On the same day, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), and it alleges the following causes of action: (1) harassment in violation of Government Code §§ 12940, et seq., (2) failure to prevent harassment in violation of Government Code § 12940(k); (3) battery; (4) sexual battery; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (7) negligent supervision and retention; and (8) negligence; and (9) violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The FAC alleges that Speth touched Plaintiff in a sexually inappropriate manner while she was working as a server for the Roosevelt Hotel. It is further alleged that Speth works for a separate employer that is contracted by the Roosevelt Hotel to perform hotelier services.

Currently, Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration is pending and set to be heard on January 30, 2023. Consequently, Defendants filed the instant motion to stay proceedings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1284.4

DISCUSSION

Applicable Law

If the complaining party has made application to a court of competent jurisdiction for an order to arbitrate, and the application is undetermined, the court in which the action or proceeding is pending must, on motion of a party, stay the action or proceeding until the application is determined, and if arbitration of the controversy is ordered, until the arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)  The trial court does not have authority to deny a motion to stay the proceedings pending an application for arbitration in a court of competent jurisdiction.  (Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 188, 192 [“[t]his statute is clear and unambiguous: it requires that the trial court stay an action pending before it while an application to arbitrate the subject matter of the action is pending in a court of competent jurisdiction” (citing Marcus v. Superior Court (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 204, 209)].)  However, if the issue which is the controversy subject to arbitration is severable, the stay may be with respect to that issue only.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.)

Application to Facts

            Here, Defendants argue that a stay is warranted in this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.4 on the grounds that a motion to compel arbitration is pending before this Court, and Section 1281.4 requires the Court to grant a stay order over this entire action as a result. (Motion at pp. 2-3.)

            In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Court should not implement a stay because she has a right to conduct discovery relating to the arbitration agreement. (Opposition at pg. 5.) Otherwise, Plaintiff asserts that she would be prejudiced. (Opposition at pp. 5-7.) Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that her FAC renders the pending motion to compel arbitration and joinder moot because she distinguishes the relationship between Speth and the Roosevelt Hotel and there is no overlap of liability based on the causes of action raised in the FAC. (Opposition at pp. 7-8.)

The Court agrees with Defendants and therefore finds that their motion for stay has merit.  Section 1281.4 is unambiguous: “it requires that the trial court stay an action pending before it while an application to arbitrate the subject matter of the action is pending in a court of competent jurisdiction” provide a motion to stay is made.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at 192.) It is undisputed that a motion to compel arbitration is currently pending in this action. Thus, under these circumstances, Defendants are entitled to a stay over this entire action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4.) 

.            To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that she is entitled to conduct discovery relating to the arbitration agreement, the Court does not find this argument persuasive. The cases upon which Plaintiff relies on are federal cases. As the Court of Appeal in Twentieth Century Fox reasoned, the trial court there erred by relying on federal authorities when the language of Section 1281.4 is clear and unambiguous. (Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at 191-192.) Additionally, the Court finds that neither the prejudice that Plaintiff may suffer between the time of this hearing and January 30, 2023 (when the motion to compel arbitration is set to be heard) nor any supposed lack of merit to Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration that would require this Court to deny the instant motion. Therefore, because the Court is required to follow the clear language of Section 1281.4, the Court GRANT this Motion

CONCLUSION

            The Motion to Stay Action Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1284.4 is GRANTED. The Court STAYS this action pending the hearing on Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.

            Defendants to give notice.

            If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.