Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCV15916, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: January 9, 2025

Case Name: Nevarez, et al. v. J.K. Residential Services, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 23STCV25594 

Matter: Motion to Stay

Moving Party: Defendants J.K. Residential Services, Inc., 7520 S. Broadway, LLC, J.K.

Properties, Inc.

Responding Party: All Plaintiffs

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion to Stay is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect.  If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

Defendants J.K. Residential Services, Inc., 7520 S. Broadway, LLC, and J.K. Properties, Inc. seek to stay this action for 90-120 days because they are subject to a receivership stemming from Jogani v. Jogani, case no. BC290553; the receiver will manage a multitude of litigation against the entity Defendants; and because the receivership is complex, the receiver will take time to transition into this matter.

Plaintiffs oppose a stay because, among other reasons, it would lengthen the time they must live in substandard conditions and because Defendants have already delayed discovery with  abusive actions. 

“[A] court ordinarily has inherent power, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice.”  (People v. Bell (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 323, 329.)  “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”  (Landis v. North American Co. (1936) 299 U.S. 248, 254.)  “In exercising its discretion the court should consider the importance of discouraging multiple litigation designed solely to harass an adverse party, and of avoiding unseemly conflicts with the courts of other jurisdictions. It should also consider whether the rights of the parties can best be determined by the court of the other jurisdiction because of the nature of the subject matter, the availability of witnesses, or the stage to which the proceedings in the other court have already advanced.”  (Farmland Irr. Co. v. Dopplmaier (1957) 48 Cal.2d 208, 215.)

The Court has considered this matter and will, in the exercise of its discretion, stay this action for 90 days.  The Motion is granted.  Status Conference re: Stay is set for February 28, 2025, at 8:30 AM.

Moving party to give notice.