TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Nickolas Gene Carter and Retrac Inc. d.b.a. Kaotic Productions’ Motion to Stay Proceedings is DENIED.

Defendants Nickolas Gene Carter and Retrac Inc. d.b.a. Kaotic Productions to give notice.

REASONING

          

Defendants Nickolas Gene Carter and Retrac Inc. d.b.a. Kaotic Productions (“Defendants”) move the Court for an order staying this action on the ground that the parties and primary witnesses reside in Nevada, and Plaintiff has engaged in forum shopping. Plaintiff Melissa Schuman (“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion on the ground that it is simply a recycled version of Defendants’ motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, Defendants have failed to meet their burden to justify a stay of this case, granting a stay will prejudice Plaintiff, Defendants will not suffer hardship if this case goes forward, and staying this action will not simplify issues, proof, or questions of law.

On January 17, 2024, this Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, noting in its order that Defendants had moved only to dismiss the action, rather than stay it, which made it such that Defendants faced a much higher burden than they would have had they moved to stay the action. On April 15, 2024, Defendants filed this motion, moving to stay the action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128, which gives the Court the power to provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it and amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice.

Put simply, this motion is a second motion based on forum non conveniens, “an equitable doctrine invoking the discretionary power of a court to decline to exercise the jurisdiction it has over a transitory cause of action when it believes that the action may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere.” (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751.) When considering the prior motion, the Court considered, among other issues, the fact that the parties and primary witnesses resided in Nevada, Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff had purportedly engaged in forum shopping, and the fact that there are similar cases pending in Nevada concerning the same issues as Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit. Defendants ask the Court to consider these same issues again in the present motion. It follows that this motion is an improper motion for reconsideration disguised as a different type of motion seeking different relief while using the same arguments as the prior motion.

It is well established that renewal of the same motion may be a serious burden on courts, such that trial courts need not consider a new motion supported by substantially the same showing as the one denied. (See City and County of San Francisco v. Muller (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 600, 603 [“when it became apparent to the court that the present motion was based upon substantially the same grounds, and sought substantially the same relief, as the preceding motions, the court had clear authority to deny it”].) While Defendants seek different relief here, it is only because they chose not to put Plaintiff on notice of their request for this alternative relief in their prior motion brought with the same arguments, i.e., they included the request for a stay in a footnote, which denied Plaintiff the opportunity to brief whether a stay is proper.

To the extent this motion is one for reconsideration, a motion for reconsideration must be made “within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order.” Thus, Defendants’ motion, insofar as it is one for reconsideration, is untimely under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. Accordingly, Defendants Nickolas Gene Carter and Retrac Inc. d.b.a. Kaotic Productions’ Motion to Stay Proceedings is DENIED.

Evidentiary Objections

Defendants object to certain statements within the declaration of Karen Barth Menzies. The Court does not rule on these objections, as they were not material to the Court’s ruling herein.