Judge: Maren Nelson, Case: 23STCV15315, Date: 2023-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15315    Hearing Date: September 27, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENATIVE RULING

This motion is continued to a date after October 3, 2023, to allow for Judge Long’s ruling on the Notice of Related Cases.

            On 6/30/20223, Plaintiffs the Dominguez Law Firm, LLP and Top Reach Marketing, LLC filed suit against Jose Luis Nazar, Land of the Free, L.P., the Telco, Ring Pros , Lc, Champion Communications, Inc., Champion Communications, LTCD, Lead Capital, LLC, and 800.com, LLC, alleging: (1) specific performance of a contract; (2) declaratory relief; (3) declaratory relief; (4) declaratory relief; (5) declaratory relief; and (6) unfair business practices.

            Now, Defendants Lead Capital, LLC, 800.com, LLC, Joe Luis Nazar, and Land of the Free, L.P. (collectively, “Defendants”) demur to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, or request a stay in the alternative.

Factual Background

This lawsuit is the third in California, and fourth in the nation, directed toward the alleged misconduct of The Telco, Ring Pros LLC, Champion Communications, Inc., and Champion Communications, Ltd. (the “Fernandez Defendants”), owned and operated by non-party Greg Fernandez, and their attempts to license and sell the toll-free number 800-777-7777 (the “Number”). Plaintiffs here—The Dominguez Firm, LLP, and Top Reach Marketing, LLC (“Plaintiffs”)—are downstream licensees of the number who brought this action to protect their purported right to uninterrupted use of the Number in California.

Defendant José Luis Nazar (together with Defendant Land of the Free, L.P., the “Nazar Defendants”) sued the Fernandez Defendants for fraud and breach of an agreement permitting the Fernandez Defendants to market the Number (subject to the Nazar Defendants’ knowledge and approval) to third parties (the “Nazar Action”).

Allegedly, the Fernandez Defendants were not seeking the Nazar Defendants’ approval when entering agreements to sell ownership rights to the Number, such as to Defendants Lead Capital, LLC and 800.com, LLC (together, the “Esposito Defendants”).

The Nazar Action is scheduled for trial on October 23, 2023, and will address the issue of whether the Nazar Defendants are the rightful subscribers to the Number, as well as whether the Fernandez Defendants breached their duties and obligations to the Nazar Defendants by entering unauthorized third-party licenses and sale agreements for the Number.

Discussion

            Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed with prejudice, or should be stayed pending resolution of the Nazar Action.

            After review, the Court does not reach the merits of the demurrer or the request to stay, and instead continues this hearing until after October 3, 2023.

            Here, when Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit, there were already three other pending lawsuits directed toward the same underlying subject matter—whether the Fernandez Defendants ever had rights to the Number and whether their attempts to license and sell the Number to others was legitimate.  Moreover, trial is set for October 2023 in the Nazar Action, where a court will determine right(s) to the Number and the validity of competing claims to the Number. This action raises the same questions, and seeks the same relief. (See e.g. Complaint, ¶ Prayer for Relief, “For a judicial declaration and determination that the Call Forwarding Agreement is valid and enforceable as to the Subscriber of Record for the Number and/or as to the entity that rightfully controls the Number, whoever that is deemed to be; “For a judicial declaration and determination that Fernandez’s sale of the Number to Lead was a violation of Dominguez’s Right of First Refusal.”)

“Granting a stay in a case where the issues in two actions are substantially identical . . . is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Thomson v. Continental Ins. Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 738, 746.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that a stay will undermine judicial economy. However, here, it is possible that the Nazar Action may render moot, or otherwise substantially narrow, many (if not all) of Plaintiffs’ claims. Moreover, given that the Nazar Action is shortly set for trial, a stay would not be lengthy. It would also mitigate the risk of conflicting rulings.

Based on these considerations, the Court would likely find that a stay is appropriate. However, in opposition, Plaintiff requests a continuance of this hearing to a date after October 3, 2023, given that on October 3rd, “Judge Long in Dept. 48 will decide if the Dominguez Lawsuit is related to the Nazar Lawsuit. If the Court relates the two lawsuits, Dominguez will then file a Motion to Consolidate the actions for all purposes.” (Opp., 7: 1-4.)

Given that this action might by deemed related/consolidated to a case in another Department, the Court finds it prudent to withhold a ruling until Judge Long has had an opportunity to make that determination. Upon a finding that the matters are related, or should be consolidated, this motion to stay will be moot.

Based on the foregoing, this motion is continued to a date after October 3, 2023, to allow for Judge Long’s ruling on the Notice of Related Cases.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  September    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.