Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV01191, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01191    Hearing Date: May 1, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: May 1, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Stay

Moving Party: Defendant Atkinson Contractors, LP

Responding Party: Plaintiff LACMTA

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

            “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.) 

            Defendant moves to stay this action pending an action between the same parties in Maryland. Defendant asserts that this action and the Maryland action arise from the same set of facts and implicate the same legal issues. The parties dispute whether Defendant procured the correct insurance for a construction project with Plaintiff and whether Defendant must pay Plaintiff damages arising from a class action lawsuit against Plaintiff.

            Defendant argues a stay is necessary because Defendant filed the Maryland action 5 hours before Plaintiff filed the California action and one of Defendant’s limited partners, GFA Construction, is involved in this dispute and is located in Maryland. In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that California is the proper forum because the events occurred here and the contract requires that disputes be litigated in California under California law.

            The Court declines to stay the action at this time. That Defendant won the race to courthouses by 5 hours is not dispositive. Forum selection likely will be litigated in both actions. Defendant has not shown in this motion that this action should be stayed in favor of the Maryland action.

            Defendant’s motion is DENIED.