Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV16058, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16058    Hearing Date: January 31, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Valentina Lore (“Lore”)   

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”)

I.            INTRODUCTION

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on June 27, 2020. On May 13, 2022, Plaintiffs Wayne McDonald (“McDonald”) and Kimberly Sissle (“Sissle”) filed a complaint against Defendants Luis Ceja Salcedo (“Salcedo”), Luciana Nunez (“Nunez”), Lyft Inc. (“Lyft”), and DOES 1 to 10 (the “1st Action”), alleging causes of action for: (1) motor vehicle and (2) general negligence.

On May 27, 2022, in LASC Case No. 22STCV17653, Plaintiff Valentina Lore (“Lore”) filed a complaint against Salcedo, Lyft, Nunez, and DOES 1 through 50 (the “2d Action”), arising from the same motor vehicle collision from which Plaintiffs McDonald and Sissle filed their complaint. Plaintiff Lore’s complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) motor vehicle and (2) general negligence.[1]  

On November 8, 2022, in the 2d Action, the Court issued a minute order deeming the 1st Action and the 2d Action as related and indicated that the 1st Action was the lead case.

On June 16, 2023, Defendant Lyft filed a motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff Lore’s claims and to stay all judicial proceedings pending the completion of arbitration.

On August 10, 2023, after hearing oral argument, the Court granted Defendant Lyft’s motion to compel arbitration as to Plaintiff Lore and indicated that the case was stayed as to Defendant Lyft and Plaintiff Lore. (08/10/23 Minute Order, p. 8.) The Court indicated that “[t]he consolidated action may proceed in state court.” (Id.)

On September 5, 2023, Defendant Lyft filed a Notice of Ruling as to the Court’s August 10, 2023 order, which shows that Plaintiff Lore was served with such ruling on September 5, 2023.

On January 4, 2024, Plaintiff Lore filed the instant motion to lift the stay of the action as to her and Defendant Lyft (the “Motion”). The Motion is made on the grounds that Plaintiff Lore is prejudiced because she cannot conduct discovery in this forum and must conduct discovery in arbitration. Plaintiff asserts that allowing discovery to be conducted against Defendant Lyft in the civil action will not interfere with the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.  

On January 18, 2024, Defendant Lyft filed an opposition, to which Plaintiff replied on January 24, 2024.

Plaintiff Lore’s New Evidence Submitted on Reply

          Initially, the Court notes that no evidence was presented with the moving papers. However, on reply, Plaintiff Lore presents the declaration of her counsel, Sara S. Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”). “[N]ew evidence is not permitted with reply papers.” (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537.) “[T]he inclusion of additional evidentiary matter with the reply should only be allowed in the exceptional case . . . and, if permitted, the other party should be given the opportunity to respond.” (Id. at p. 1537-38.)

          The Court finds that Plaintiff has attempted to submit evidence for the first time on reply. Any evidence in support of the Motion should have been submitted with the moving papers. Plaintiff Lore offers no explanation as to why no evidence was submitted with the moving papers. Defendant Lyft is entitled to the opportunity to respond to such declaration. The Court therefore will not consider the declaration of Rodriguez submitted with the reply brief.

          Even if the Court were to consider such declaration, such evidence would not change the Court’s analysis as counsel relevantly states that Plaintiff Lore is the only plaintiff “who is being bound by arbitration and refrained from conducting discovery against Lyft thereby creating a disadvantage” (Rodriguez Reply. Decl., ¶ 3) and she “has been prejudiced as a result of the stay . . . [because] should the matter against Lyft be stayed . . . [it] will cause further delay in preparing for trial” (Id., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff Lore concedes that she can conduct discovery against Defendant Lyft in the arbitration. (Reply, 2:10-11.) Plaintiff is not without a means to conduct discovery as discovery can be sought in the arbitration proceedings. As will be explained below, the Court finds no basis to lift the stay of this action as to Defendant Lyft.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

“Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 requires that a court impose a stay of litigation whenever that court, or another court, has ordered arbitration of a controversy that is an issue in the litigation.” (MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643, 647.) “The Court in which the litigation is pending is required to stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” (Ibid.) “The purpose of the statutory stay [required pursuant to section 1281.4] is to protect the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until arbitration is resolved.” (Id. at p. 658.) “In the absence of a stay, the continuation of the proceedings in the trial court disrupts the arbitration proceedings and can render them ineffective.” (Ibid.) “[A] trial court possesses some amount of discretion to lift a stay imposed pursuant to section 1281.4, prior to the completion of an ordered arbitration.” (Id. at p. 660.) “[T]he most reasonable interpretation of the stay provision is that it grants a trial court discretion to lift a stay prior to the completion of arbitration only under circumstances in which the lifting of the stay would not frustrate the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.” (Ibid., emphasis added.)

III.        DISCUSSION

Issue No.1: Nature of Plaintiff Lore’s Motion

          Defendant Lyft contends that the Motion should be denied because it constitutes an improper motion for reconsideration.

          California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1008(a) provides that “[w]hen an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order . . . [may] make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order.”  “The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).) A trial court has discretion with respect to granting a motion for reconsideration. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.)

          The Court finds that the Motion is not an improper motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff Lore is not asking the Court to reconsider its order granting Defendant Lyft’s motion to compel arbitration and stay this action as to Defendant Lyft. Plaintiff Lore is seeking relief that was not sought as to the motion to compel arbitration.  

          Moreover, there is no time limit for a party to bring a motion to lift a stay of an action. (MKJA, Inc., supra, 191 Cal.App.4th 643.) Therefore, the Court finds that the Motion is not a motion for reconsideration and is not untimely.

Issue No.2: Appropriateness of Lifting the Stay

          Initially, the Court finds that Plaintiff Lore’s reliance on MKJA, Inc., supra, 191 Cal.App.4th 643 is inapposite to support her position of lifting the stay of this action pending the completion of arbitration. MKJA, Inc. involved a request to lift a stay due to the cost of arbitration; however, here, Plaintiff requests to lift the stay so that she can seek discovery from Defendant Lyft in the civil action.

          The Court finds that lifting the stay of this action would possibly impede the arbitrator’s jurisdiction. Allowing discovery to proceed against Defendant Lyft by Plaintiff Lore in this forum may subject the parties to inconsistent rulings should a discovery dispute arise. The Court fails to see the logic in dual discovery—discovery in this forum and in the arbitration proceedings—and finds that lifting of the stay is not appropriate. The purpose of the stay is to preserve the status quo and lifting such stay to allow discovery would not comport with preserving the status quo between Plaintiff Lore and Defendant Lyft.

          Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Lore’s motion for an order lifting the stay of this matter against Defendant Lyft is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that 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 matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

     Dated this 31st day of January 2024