Judge Nathan Nhan Vu, Case 30-2022-01280648 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Nathan Nhan Vu, Case: 30-2022-01280648, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Mediation

Defendant Kingman Gardens Corporation’s Motion to Compel Mediation is DENIED.

Pursuant to their agreement to mediate, the court ORDERS that the parties mediate this dispute within 90 days of this ruling.

Defendant Kingman Gardens Corporation moves to compel mediation of the claims brought by Plaintiffs Sandy Ortuno, Maria Ortuno, Rafaela Argumedo, Monserrat Ortuno through Guardian Ad Litem Rafaela Argumedo, Leah Ortuno through Guardian Ad Litem Rafaela Argumedo, and Leonardo Ortuno through Guardian Ad Litem Rafaela Argumedo (collectively, Plaintiffs).

There is no dispute that Defendant and Plaintiffs entered into a Lease Agreement for the property located at 5791 Kingman Avenue, Unit J, Buena Park, California 90621 (Lease Agreement). (See Compl., ¶ 13, Exh. A; Decl. of Gabriela Marquez in Supp. of Mot. to Compel Mediation (Marquez Decl.), ¶ 3, Exh. 1, Exh. A.)

The Lease Agreement provides:

27. MUTUAL AGREEMENT TO MEDIATE AND TO ARBITRATE CLAIMS. Any dispute between the parties arising from, or relating to the use of the leased premises, or arising from the condition of the premises or of the common areas, or any event thereon, shall be resolved by mediation, and if unsuccessful, then by arbitration conducted pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, in conformity with the procedures of the California Arbitration Act. . . .

(Compl., Exh. A, ¶ 27; Marquez Decl. Exh. 1, Exh. A., ¶ 27.)

Defendant, however, cites to no provision of the contract that provides this court the power to take action if the parties fail to mediate. Defendant also fails to cite to any statute or case law that provides this court the authority to compel mediation or take any other action due to the failure to mediate, and the court is aware of no such authority.

Defendant only cites to case law confirming the strong public policy in favor of mediating disputes. (See, e.g., Mem. of P.A.’s in Supp. of Mot. to Compel Mediation at p. 3:15-16 [citing Cullen v. Corwin (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1079].)

In any case, Plaintiffs previously offered to mediate and are now willing to mediate. (See Marquez Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. 3; Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss, Exh. A.) (fn.1) Therefore, the Motion to Compel Mediation is moot. The court will deny the motion, but will require that the parties mediate pursuant to their agreement.

(fn.1) Plaintiffs attached an exhibit directly to their Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, which is improper. Any exhibits should be attached to a declaration which properly states the personal knowledge and foundation of the declarant to support the admission of the exhibit. However, because the exhibit is a document from Plaintiffs’ Counsel and the Opposition is a document signed by Plaintiff’s Counsel, the court will accept it in this instance. The court may ignore exhibits that are improperly introduced in the future.

Motion to Dismiss or Stay

Defendant Kingman Gardens Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint or in the Alternative, Stay the Action is DENIED.

Defendant Kingman Gardens Corporation moves to dismiss the complaint filed by Plaintiffs Sandy Ortuno, Maria Ortuno, Rafaela Argumedo, Monserrat Ortuno through Guardian Ad Litem Rafaela Argumedo, Leah Ortuno through Guardian Ad Litem Rafaela Argumedo, and Leonardo Ortuno through Guardian Ad Litem Rafaela Argumedo (collectively, Plaintiffs), or in the alternative, to stay these proceedings pending mediation.

There is no dispute that Defendant and Plaintiffs entered into a Lease Agreement for the property located at 5791 Kingman Avenue, Unit J, Buena Park, California 90621 (Lease Agreement). (See Compl., ¶ 13, Exh. A; Decl. of Gabriela Marquez in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Stay the Action (Marquez Decl.), ¶ 3, Exh. 1, Exh. A.)

The Lease Agreement provides:

(Compl., Exh. A, ¶ 27; Marquez Decl. Exh. 1, Exh. A., ¶ 27.)

Defendant contends that pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 583.150, the court has discretion to dismiss the case until a contractually required mediation is complete.

However, Section 583.150 provides only that statutes relating to dismissal for delay in prosecution “do[] not limit or affect the authority of a court to dismiss an action or impose other sanctions under a rule adopted by the court pursuant to Section 575.1 or by the Judicial Council pursuant to statute, or otherwise under inherent authority of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.150.) Thus, Section 583.150 provides no independent authority for the court to dismiss this action.

Further, Defendant cites no statuate, rule of court, local rule, or inherent authority providing this court the authority to dismiss the action pending resolution of contractual mediation.

However, even assuming that the court has the discretion to dismiss this action, there is no justification for the court to exercise that discretion here. Plaintiffs previously offered to mediate the case and are still willing to mediate case; Defendants simply did not and have not accepted Plaintiffs’ offer. (See Marquez Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. 3; Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss, Exh. A.)

Defendant requests, in the alternative, that the court stay this case pending mediation pursuant to Rules of Court, rule 3.515 (h) and the court’s inherent authority. Defendant correctly notes that “[t]rial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Friedberg v. Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.)

However, in light Plaintiffs’ prior and current offers to mediate, there is no reason to stay this action. Defendant could have and can still mediate this action at any time and in fact, the court has ordered mediation pursuant to the parties’ agreement. There is no need for a stay and the court will exercise its discretion to deny a stay.

Plaintiffs shall give notice of these rulings.