Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV00144, Date: 2024-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV00144    Hearing Date: May 8, 2024    Dept: 8


Tentative Ruling 


HEARING DATE:                 May 8, 2024 


CASE NUMBER:                   24TRCV00144  


CASE NAME:                        Jorge Lara Rojas v. String King Lacrosse, LLC   


MOVING PARTY:                Defendant String King Lacrosse, LLC  

 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Jorge Lara Rojas (no opposition)


TRIAL DATE:                        None set  


MOTION:                              (1) Motion to Stay Proceedings 


Tentative Rulings:                  (1) The motion to stay is GRANTED for 90 days, at which point the parties are to return for a further CMC


I. BACKGROUND

1.     Factual 

 This is a PAGA action. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff Jorge Lara Rojas (Plaintiff) worked for Defendant String King Lacrosse, LLC (Defendant), who failed to provide employees overtime, minimum wages, meal and rest breaks, accurate wage statements, access to personnel records, or wages due on termination. (Complaint ¶¶ 10–18.)

2.     Procedural  

  Plaintiff filed the Complaint on January 16, 2024, alleging one PAGA cause of action.

 

Defendant filed the present motion for stay of proceedings on April 12, 2024. Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition on April 25, 2024.  In a brief Reply filed May 1, 2024, Defendant sought a ruling without hearing or the granting of the motion at the scheduled hearing, which is the Court’s tentative ruling.

 

II. ANALYSIS 

1.                  Legal Standard 

 “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.) The decision of a trial court to stay proceedings is thus generally a matter of discretion. (Bains v. Moores (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 445, 480.)

But where a court finds that “another action is pending upon the same cause of action . . . an interlocutory judgment shall be entered in favor of the defendant pleading the same to the effect that no trial of other issues shall be had until final determination of that other action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 597.) “A trial court has no discretion to allow the second action to proceed if it finds the first involves substantially the same controversy between the same parties. “ (Leadford v. Leadford (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 571, 574.)

Additionally, “[u]nder the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, when two California superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties involved in litigation, the first to assume jurisdiction has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties involved until such time as all necessarily related matters have been resolved. The rule is based upon the public policies of avoiding conflicts that might arise between courts if they were free to make contradictory decisions or awards relating to the same controversy, and preventing vexatious litigation and multiplicity of suits.” (People ex rel. Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 760, 769–70.)

2.                  Discussion   

           Defendant String King Lacrosse LLC (Defendant) identifies two earlier-filed and pending PAGA actions involving the same parties and causes of action: LASC Case No. 23STCV23225, Moreno v. Stringking, Inc., filed on September 25, 2023, and LASC Case No. 23TRCV03194, De La Luz v. Stringking, Inc. (RJN Exhs. 1, 2.) Because these are PAGA actions, the real party in interest on the plaintiff’s side in all three cases is the government. (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 382.)

Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. In a notice of non-opposition, Plaintiff states that a stay is not objectionable to allow a global mediation scheduled for May 24, 2024 to proceed. (Non-Opposition at p. 2.) Plaintiff hopes to lift the stay after the mediation, on the grounds that the other actions are subject to arbitration. (Ibid.)

Defendant has shown good cause for the stay requested, as the prior claims involve the same Plaintiffs seeking the same penalties for the same violations. Plaintiff does not challenge the argument in opposition.  

III. CONCLUSION


 The motion for stay is GRANTED.  The Court will have the parties come back in 90 days to assess how the case or cases will be proceeding.