Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV02764, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02764    Hearing Date: November 21, 2024    Dept: 61

BR CO I, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, SUING INDIVIDUALLY AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF COOKIES CREATIVE CONSU vs GILBERT MILAM, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant Cookies Creative Consulting & Promotions, Inc.’s Motion to Extend Stay is GRANTED.

Defendant to provide notice.

DISCUSSION

“Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) The decision of a trial court to stay proceedings is thus generally a matter of discretion. (Bains v. Moores (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 445, 480.)

This court entered a stay of this action on October 11, 2023, at the behest of Defendants Creative Consulting & Promotions, Inc. (Cookies), Gilbert Milam (Milam), and Parker Berling (Berling), this court stayed proceedings in this action pending the resolution of pending arbitration between Cookies and third-party contractors. But on July 1, 2024, this court granted Plaintiff Nedco LLC’s motion to lift the stay, on the grounds that the overlapping management between former plaintiff BR CO and the contractors suing Cookies in the arbitration had been alleviated by BR CO’s dismissal of its claims. However, this court ruled that the lifting of the stay was to be effective on November 1, 2024. Cookies now brings the present motion to extend the stay an additional two months until January 1, 2025, to allow the arbitration, presently underway and set for a merits hearing on December 9, 2024, to proceed before the stay is lifted on this case concerning overlapping factual matters. (Motion at p. 2.)*

Plaintiff in opposition argues against allowing a further extension of the stay beyond that already permitted, on the grounds that warranted lifting of the stay as stated in the court’s prior July 1, 2024 order. (Opposition at pp. 11–13.) Plaintiff also argues that the arbitration will not necessarily conclude by the end of December, and that in the meantime it will be prejudiced by an inability to conduct discovery in this action. (Opposition at pp. 13–14.)

A short extension of the stay is warranted until January 1, 2025, for the reasons that justified extending the stay in this court’s July 1, 2024 order. The merits hearing in the arbitration is imminent, and lifting the stay at this juncture would prejudice Defendants, whom Plaintiff acknowledges are facing “at least five other simultaneous court proceedings and arbitrations.” (Opposition at p. 13.) By contrast, Plaintiff articulates no prejudice resulting from an ability to conduct discovery during a further stay of the proceedings that lasts only until the end of this year.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.

* The stay was extended again to November 21, 2024, pursuant to Defendant’s ex parte application granted on October 31, 2024.