Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV00163, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00163    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 9/16/22

Case # 22CHCV00163

MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

Motion filed on 7/1/22.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., erroneously sued as American Express Corp.

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Brenda Young-Bryant

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order to stay discovery pending a ruling on Defendant American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., erroneously sued as American Express Corp.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration.

RULING: The motion is granted as set forth below. 

On 3/14/22, Plaintiff Brenda Young-Bryant (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., erroneously sued as American Express Corp. (Defendant) for: (1) Violation of the California Identity Theft Law; (2) Violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act; (3) Violation of California Unfair Competition Law and (4) Negligence.  On 4/16/22, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Production.  (Edep Decl. ¶2).  On 4/22/22, Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint.  On 5/23/22, Defendant requested that Plaintiff stipulate to arbitrate her claims pursuant to the contract between the parties.  (Edep Decl. ¶3, Ex.A).  Plaintiff’s counsel refused to so stipulate.  Id.  On 5/24/22, Defendant served objections to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production based in part on the ground that Plaintiff’s claims are subject to arbitration.  (Id. at ¶4). 

On 6/27/22, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (served on 6/26/22) which was scheduled for hearing on 9/26/22.  On 6/28/22, Defendant filed and served a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action which is scheduled for hearing on 11/3/22.  On 7/1/22, Defendant filed and served the instant Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action which was scheduled for hearing on 11/15/22. 

On 7/22/22, in response to Defendant’s ex parte application to shorten time for hearing on the instant motion, which was opposed by Plaintiff, the Court advanced the hearings on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses and Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery to 7/22/22 and continued the hearings on those two motions to 9/16/22.  (See 7/22/22 Minute Order).  Defendant was ordered to give notice.  Id. 

Defendant has not filed evidence that it provided Plaintiff with notice of this Court’s 7/22/22 ruling as ordered.  On 8/1/22, Plaintiff filed and served an Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action which lists a 9/16/22 hearing date.  However, the Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action was not advanced to 9/16/22 and remains on calendar for 11/3/22.  (See 7/22/22 Minute Order).  Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action.  On 9/9/22, Defendant filed and served a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Motion to Stay Discovery.

CCP 1281.4 provides, in relevant part:

If an application has been made to a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, for an order to arbitrate a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State and such application is undetermined, 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 the application for an order to arbitrate is determined and, if arbitration of such controversy is ordered, until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies. (emphasis added).

Based on Defendant’s filing of a motion to compel arbitration, upon Defendant’s motion for a stay, this Court is required to stay the action until the motion to compel arbitration is determined on 11/3/22.  CCP 1281.4. 

As such, the instant motion is granted. 

The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses is placed off calendar due to the ruling on the Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Action.  If the Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted on 11/3/22, the Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses will be moot.  If the Motion to Compel Arbitration is denied, Defendant indicates that it will appeal the order which will automatically stay the entire action.  (See Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses, p.9:15-25).  As such, the Court will discuss the rescheduling of the Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses at the 11/3/22 hearing on the Motion to Compel Arbitration, if the Motion to Compel Arbitration is denied.