Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 18STCV06655, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV06655    Hearing Date: October 28, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant and Cross-Complainant Danny Wimmer Presents, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant AEG Presents Productions, LLC

Motion to Vacate Trial Date, Hearings on Motions for Summary Adjudication and Hearings on Discovery Motions

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff AEG Presents Productions, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on November 29, 2018 against defendant Danny Wimmer Presents, LLC (“Defendant”).  Plaintiff filed its operative First Amended and Supplemental Complaint against Defendant on January 11, 2022, alleging 27 causes of action on behalf of the partnerships Rock on the Range and Carolina Rebellion.

Defendant filed a special motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended and Supplemental Complaint on March 14, 2022.  On August 25, 2022, the court denied Defendant’s special motion to strike.  Defendant appealed the court’s order.  

Defendant filed the pending ex parte application to vacate the trial date and other pending hearing dates in this action on September 29, 2022.  On September 30, 2022, the court continued the ex parte application to be heard as a noticed motion.

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves the court for an order vacating the trial date and other pending hearing dates in this action pending resolution of Defendant’s appeal of this court’s order denying its special motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended and Supplemental Complaint.  Specifically, Defendant requests that the court take off calendar the following hearings: (1) April 5, 2023 trial; (2) March 24, 2023 final status conference; (3) November 9, 2022 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication, filed on August 26, 2022; (4) November 28, 2022 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed on September 14, 2022; (5) November 7, 2022 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel further discovery; and various hearings on motions to compel further discovery, which have been continued to later dates following the filing of this motion.   

The court denies Defendant’s motion for order vacating the trial date and pending hearing dates.

“[T]he perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby…but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a).)  The purpose of this provision “‘is to protect the appellate court’s jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided.’”  (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189.) 

The court finds that the claims that Defendant moved to strike in its special motion to strike—specifically, the claims that Defendant unlawfully submitted confidential information related to the festivals to secure permits for Defendant’s own festivals—are subject to the automatic stay provision set forth in section 916, subdivision (a).  “[T]he perfecting of an appeal from the denial of a special motion to strike automatically stays all further trial court proceedings on the merits upon the causes of action affected by the motion.”  (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 186.)  Because certain claims alleged in paragraphs 54, 58, 69, 109, 153, and 185 of the First Amended and Supplemental Complaint are the subject of the appeal, the court finds that all proceedings on the merits, and particularly, trial, related to these claims are stayed pending resolution of Defendant’s appeal from the court’s order denying Defendant’s special motion to strike.  (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (a).)

The court finds that the other claims and causes of action which were not the subject of Defendant’s special motion to strike are not automatically stayed.  While “an appeal from the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion automatically stays further trial court proceedings on the merits” of the causes of action affected thereby, the appeal “does not, however, stay proceedings relating to causes of action not affected by the motion.”  (Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 195, fn. 8.)

The court acknowledges that Defendant contends that nearly all other causes of action are effectively implicated by its appeal, since many are predicated or “potentially predicated” on the existence of a fiduciary relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant.  (Mot., p. 6:1-6.)  Because the court’s order denying Defendant’s special motion to strike concluded that Plaintiff met its burden to establish the probability of proving the element of the existence of a fiduciary relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant, Defendant argues that a contrary decision by the Court of Appeal “may become the law of the case and foreclose further prosecution of a majority of [Plaintiff’s] causes of action.”  (August 25, 2022 Order, pp. 14:23-16:10; Mot., p.10: 16-17.) 

The court finds that this possibility does not subject the unrelated claims and causes of action alleged in Plaintiff’s First Amended and Supplemental Complaint to section 916’s automatic stay.  If the Court of Appeal determines that Plaintiff did not meet its burden of making a prima facie factual showing sufficient to establish the existence of a fiduciary relationship between it and Defendant, it may, as argued by Defendant, become the law of the case.  (Hotels Nevada, LLC v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 336, 356.)  However, the court would not be prevented from considering this issue of a fiduciary relationship upon the submission of new evidence from Plaintiff.  (Ibid. [explaining that this doctrine does not prevent retrial of an issue, but does require the same conclusion be reached if that matter is retried on the same evidence].)  The court therefore finds that the issue of whether there exists a fiduciary relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant, as alleged in the claims and causes of action that Defendant did not move to strike, are not embraced in or affected by Defendant’s appeal.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a).)

The court therefore finds that (1) proceedings as to the claims challenged by Defendant in its special motion to strike are stayed pending appeal, but (2) proceedings as to the other, nonchallenged claims are not stayed pending Defendant’s appeal.  The court therefore rules on Defendant’s motion as set forth below.

The court finds that the action is stayed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 916 as to the claims alleged in the 1st, 14th, 6th, and 18th causes of action, to the extent that they are based on the following allegations which were challenged by Defendant in its special motion to strike: “government entities” (FASC ¶ 54); “DWP utilized the CAD drawings for Rock on the Range and, on information and belief, the CAD drawings for Carolina Rebellion, in the production of, and to secure permits for Sonic Temple and Epicenter Festival, respectively” (FASC ¶ 58); “utilizing partnership assets for its sole gain” (FASC ¶ 69); “CAD drawings without AEG’s consent; (b) by disclosing to third parties confidential information provided or produced in connection with Rock on the Range without AEG’s consent” (FASC ¶ 109); “utilizing partnership assets for its sole gain” (FASC ¶ 153); and “CAD drawings and other Festival Materials without AEG’s consent; (b) by disclosing to third parties confidential information related to Carolina Rebellion without AEG’s consent” (FASC ¶ 185). 

The court denies Defendant’s motion to vacate the trial date and final status conference without prejudice to either party moving the court to exercise its discretion to continue the trial and/or stay the action pending the Court of Appeal’s determination of the appeal on the court’s order denying Defendant’s special motion to strike. 

The court denies Defendant’s motion to vacate the November 9, 2022 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for summary adjudication as to the issue of whether Defendant owed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, since the issue of duty as to all nonchallenged claims is not stayed for the reasons set forth above. 

The court denies Defendant’s motion to vacate the November 28, 2022 hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to Defendant’s Second Amended Cross-Complaint because the issues do not implicate the subject matter pending before the Court of Appeal.

The court denies as moot Defendant’s motion to vacate the informal discovery conference because the parties have stipulated to take off calendar the informal discovery conference scheduled for November 3, 2022.

The court denies Defendant’s motion to vacate the remaining hearings on the motions to compel discovery because the court finds that Defendant has not met its burden of establishing that permitting discovery to proceed on all claims “would have any effect on the ‘effectiveness’ of the appeal” or would render “the appeal futile by altering the appealed judgment or order by conducting” these discovery proceedings.  (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 189 [emphasis added].)

ORDER

The court denies defendant Danny Wimmer Presents, LLC’s motion to vacate trial date, hearings on motions for summary adjudication and hearings on discovery motions without prejudice to either party moving the court to exercise its discretion to continue the trial and/or stay the action pending the Court of Appeal’s determination of the appeal on the court’s order denying Defendant’s special motion to strike.

The court orders plaintiff AEG Presents Productions, LLC to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 28, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court