Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00012826-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 03, 2023

08/04/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00012826-CU-PO-CTL MANIAGO VS SCHULTZ [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants Hayley Schultz, M.D., Jessica Jou, M.D., and Erin Mowers, M.D.'s motion to stay Superior Court action pending arbitration is GRANTED.

Defendants' demurrer is OVERRULED without prejudice due to the stay.

Motion to Stay Defendants bring their motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4, under which if a court 'has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State,' then 'the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier as the court specifies.' The purpose of a stay under section 1281.4 is 'to protect the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until arbitration is resolved.' (Federal Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1374.) 'In the absence of a stay, the continuation of the proceedings in the trial court disrupts the arbitration proceedings and can render them ineffective.' (Id. at p. 1375.) Here, although Defendants are not parties to an arbitration agreement with Plaintiffs, the now-dismissed Kaiser defendants (Drs. Terry Harrison and Paul Kroonings, and Kaiser) are, and arbitration between those defendants and Plaintiffs is currently ongoing. This arbitration concerns the same surgery and the same allegations concerning valid consent from which arises Plaintiffs' claims in this case. The overlapping issues warrant a stay of this case pending the conclusion of arbitration. (See Heritage Provider Network, Inc. v. Superior Court (158 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1153 ['[A] single overlapping issue is sufficient to require imposition of a stay.'].) First, any party to a judicial proceeding may be entitled to a stay under section 1281.4, regardless of whether they are party to the relevant arbitration agreement, whenever '(1) arbitration of a controversy has been ordered, and (2) that controversy is also an issue involved in the pending judicial action.' (Marcus v. Superior Court (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 204, 209.) Thus, the fact that Defendants were not parties to the Kaiser arbitration agreement does not preclude them from seeking a stay of this case.

Second, the fact that the currently ongoing arbitration was not 'ordered' by a court is a mere technicality that does not prevent application of section 1281.4. There is no substantive difference, other than unnecessary time wasting and increased costs, between voluntarily consenting to and proceeding with arbitration pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement, and compelling a party to arbitration pursuant to the Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2972560  9 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  MANIAGO VS SCHULTZ [IMAGED]  37-2023-00012826-CU-PO-CTL same valid arbitration agreement. Had Plaintiffs not dismissed the Kaiser defendants, they undoubtedly would have sought a stay under section 1281.4 pending the outcome of arbitration. Had Plaintiffs refused to submit to arbitration, a court would have ordered them to arbitration.

Finally, the court disagrees with Plaintiffs that Leenay v. Superior Court (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 553 is applicable to the circumstances present in this case. There, a defendant that was party to an arbitration agreement with a plaintiff sought to stay an action between it and a different plaintiff who was not party to an arbitration agreement with the defendant. Here, it is the defendants who are non-parties to an agreement between the plaintiff and another defendant, and the arbitration concerns the same transaction or occurrence upon which the arbitration is based and includes overlapping issues. Notably, the Leenay court distinguished the cases cited above by pointing out that the plaintiffs were bound by an arbitration agreement with at least one defendant and had 'combined their arbitrable claims with claims against third parties.' (Leenay v. Superior Court, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 570.) The facts here are far closer to the cases distinguished by the Leenay court, because although the Kaiser defendants were dismissed, they are almost certainly indispensable to a fair resolution of any potential claims against the remaining defendants. Thus, Plaintiffs have essentially combined their arbitrable claims with claims against third parties.

Accordingly, Defendants' motion to stay is granted.

Demurrer The court notes that even were it to sustain Defendants' demurrer, it would be with leave to amend, as the deficiencies identified by Defendants are likely curable. However, in light of the stay, the better course at this time is to overrule the demurrer without prejudice and to reevaluate the state of the case against Defendants once arbitration is concluded.

Accordingly, Defendants' demurrer is overruled without prejudice.

This litigation is STAYED pending the resolution of arbitration between Plaintiffs and the now-dismissed Kaiser defendants.

The court will vacate the Civil Case Management Conference and set a status conference for February 2, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. in this department.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2972560  9