Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 20STCV09143, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Dept. 1’s courtroom staff by email (SMCDept1@lacourt.org) or by telephone (213-633-0601) no later than 8:30 a.m. the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion.  If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify the other side that you will not appear at the hearing.  If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion.  Please keep in mind that appearing at the hearing and simply repeating the arguments set forth in the papers is not a good use of the court’s time or the parties’ time.

 

Case Number: 20STCV09143    Hearing Date: February 16, 2023    Dept: 1

20STCV09143           ANTHONY DAVIS vs YAYYO, INC.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Request to Relate this Action with LASC Case No. 21STCV45724

TENTATIVE RULING:  Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Request to Relate this Action with LASC Case No. 21STCV45724 is GRANTED.  The Court relates 20STCV09143 and 21STCV45724 and orders 21STCV45724 reassigned to Department 28 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse for all purposes. All hearings currently set in 21STCV45724 are hereby advanced and vacated.

Background

On March 3, 2020, Plaintiff Anthony Davis filed the instant action against Yayyo, Inc. (f/k/a Yayyo, LLC) and Ramy El-Batrawi arising out of Plaintiff’s employment with Yayyo and the stock options that were part of his compensation.

On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff Robert William Vanech, Sr. filed a separate action, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21STCV45724, against Yayyo, Inc., EVMO, Inc. (f/k/a Rideshare Rental, Inc., f/k/a Yayyo, Inc. f/k/a Yayyo, LLC), and Ramy El-Batrawi similarly arising out of Vanech’s employment with Yayyo and the stock options that were part of his compensation.

On December 16, 2021, Plaintiff Vanech filed a Notice of Related Case in 21STCV45724. Vanech did not file the Notice of Related Case in 20STCV09143 until February 4, 2022. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(d) (“The Notice of Related Case must be filed in all pending cases listed in the notice.”).)

Motion

On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff Anthony Davis filed the instant motion seeking to relate civil law cases 20STCV09143 and 21STCV45724.

The motion is unopposed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005.)

Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests the Court take judicial notice of the dockets in both 20STCV09143 and 21STCV45724. The requests are GRANTED. (Evid. Code §§ 452(d); 452(h).)

Motion to Relate Cases

Standard

Pursuant to Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.3(f)(3), “[i]n the event that the judge designated under California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(A)(B)(C) to make the decision, does not order related any of the cases set forth in the Notice of Related Cases, any party may file a motion to have the cases related. Department 1 shall hear the motion, if the cases are all pending in the Central District or are pending in two or more different districts. . . . The motion must be served on each party in every case listed in the Notice of Related Cases, with proof of service attached.” (See also Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D).)

Cases are related when they (1) involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims, (2) arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, (3) involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property, or (4) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a).)

The Cases are Related

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(A), “[w]here all the cases listed in the notice are unlimited civil cases, or where all the cases listed in the notice are limited civil cases, the judge who has the earliest filed case must determine whether the cases must be ordered related and assigned to his or her department.” Here, 20STCV09143 is the earliest filed case, which is pending in Department 28 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. Plaintiff’s counsel indicates he called the clerk in Department 28 several times regarding the status of the Notice since its filing. (Bartolomei Decl. ¶¶ 10, 13.) For reasons unknown, the judicial officer assigned to 20STCV09143 never issued a ruling on the Notice despite sufficient time to consider the same.

The parties agree the cases should be related and filed a document entitled “Notice of Related Cases and Parties’ Joint Request for Consolidation of this Action with LASC Case No. 21STCV45724” on September 29, 2022. This document also did not result in a ruling on the Notice of Related Cases by the judicial officer assigned to 20STCV09143. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is properly brought before Department 1. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(h)(1)(D); LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(3).)  

In 20STCV09143, Plaintiff Davis’ operative Second Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) declaratory relief; (3) intentional misrepresentation and fraud; (4) promissory fraud; and (5) cancellation of instrument. Davis alleges he served as the CEO for Yayyo at a salary well below his market rate in exchange for stock options made by Yayyo’s founder Defendant El-Batrawi. The SAC alleges Defendant El-Batrawi made materially false statements to the SEC including providing forged documents concerning Plaintiff’s equity compensation and the company’s Equity Incentive Plan, inaccurately asserts Plaintiff’s options expired or the $5,000,000.00 capital contingency never occurred, and refuses to compensate Plaintiff according to the parties’ agreements. The SAC also seeks cancellation of the Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement dated December 1, 2016. Plaintiff Davis attached his November 29, 2016 offer letter to the SAC that contains a stock option compensation provision.

In 21STCV45724, Plaintiff Vanech’s operative First Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) declaratory relief; (3) intentional misrepresentation and fraud; (4) promissory fraud; and (5) cancellation of instrument. The FAC expressly alleges the Davis action “is a related case arising from the same facts and occurrences of wrongful acts committed by Defendants against Plaintiff, resulting in similar damages sustained by Plaintiff.” (Vanech FAC ¶ 1.) The FAC contains many of the same allegations as the Davis SAC, including that Defendant El-Batrawi made materially false statements to the SEC including providing forged documents concerning Plaintiff’s equity compensation and the company’s Equity Incentive Plan, inaccurately asserts Plaintiff’s options expired or the $5,000,000.00 capital contingency never occurred, and refuses to compensate Plaintiff according to the parties’ agreements. The FAC also seeks cancellation of the Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement dated December 1, 2016 and attached his November 29, 2016 offer letter to the FAC that contains an identical stock option compensation provision as Davis’ offer letter.

The Court finds the cases are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300. Both cases involve the same claims against the same Defendants by prior executive-level employees. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1). The allegations in the operative complaints relate to the same conduct by Defendants, the same contractual terms, and seek cancellation of the same documents. The two cases arise from substantially identical transactions, incidents, and events requiring the determination of the same questions of law and fact. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(2).) The cases involve the same Defendants, largely identical alleged conduct, and the same stock option terms. The parties intend to use the same experts in both cases. (Bartolomei Decl. ¶ 6.) There will be a substantial duplication of judicial resources if the two cases are heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(4).)