Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 21STCV10345 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV10345, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10345 Hearing Date: March 30, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Anella Valeros’s motion for a stay is GRANTED. The action is STAYED. The Final Status Conference and Trial dates are VACATED.

Legal Standard

The Court has inherent authority to stay proceedings to promote judicial efficiency or if the ends of justice so require. (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 1484, 1489.) A stay of proceedings is an equitable remedy, the issuance of which rests in the Court's discretion. (See, Webster v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 46 Cal. 3d 338, 345.)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for a complete stay of this case, including trial, discovery and other facets of litigation, pending the appeal of a Motion for Summary Judgment ruling and Judgment in a coverage action, entitled National General Premier Insurance Company v. Diana Haro a.k.a. Dianaluz Haro, Jason Carpenter, Anella Valeros, and Does 1-50 (Case No. 21STCV26582).

Plaintiff argues that Defendant Haro maintained an insurance policy with National General Premier Insurance Company. On December 9, 2020, Anella Valeros served a policy limit demand on Defendants Haro and Carpenter for the full available policy limits under the National General Policy. On January 5, 2021, National General disclaimed coverage under the Policy, and denied the claim made against Haro and Carpenter, stating “The vehicle involved in the accident was not a covered/listed auto on the policy of Diana Haro.” As such, a coverage dispute developed regarding as to whether there was coverage under the National General Policy for Haro or Carpenter for their alleged liability for the underlying accident in this matter, with the National General policy providing the primary (and potentially only) recovery for the injuries and damages alleged in this action.

On July 20, 2021, National General filed a Complaint for Declaratory Relief entitled National General Premier Insurance Company v. Diana Haro a.k.a. Dianaluz Haro, Jason Carpenter, Anella Valeros, and Does 1-50 (LASC Case No. 21STCV26582) (the “Declaratory Relief Action”), seeking declaratory relief that the National General policy does not provide coverage for the alleged claims and damages suffered in the accident at issue in this action. On November 15, 2022, the Court granted National General’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the Declaratory Relief Action, finding that the National General Policy did not provide coverage for the November 9, 2020 accident or the claims at issue in this litigation, and entering judgment on that basis.

On January 5, 2023, and on January 11, 2023, Haro and Valeros, respectively, filed Notices of Appeal in the Declaratory Relief Action regarding that court’s MSJ ruling and Judgment. The parties herein thus seek to have a decision on that appeal before spending the time, resources, and fees necessary to pursue the instant matter to and through trial.

When an insurer seeks declaratory relief on its duty to defend in a pending third-party action, a stay of the declaratory relief action is mandatory in some circumstances, discretionary in others. “If the factual issues to be resolved in the declaratory relief action overlap with issues to be resolved in the underlying litigation, the trial court must stay the declaratory relief action.” (Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2009) 178 Cal. App. 4th 221, 235). But “[i]f there is no such factual overlap and the declaratory relief action can be resolved on legal issues or factual issues unrelated to the issues in the underlying action, the question as to whether to stay the declaratory relief action is a matter entrusted to the trial court’s discretion.” (Id. at pp. 235-236) “In exercising such discretion, ... the trial court should consider the possibility of prejudice to both parties.” (Id. at p. 236.)

Given the absence of any opposition or claim of prejudice by any party if the requested stay is granted, the court finds staying this action pending the pending appeal of the declaratory relief action promotes just and efficient resolution of the action.

Code of Civil Procedure¿section 583.310 requires an action be brought to trial within five years of its commencement. (Code Civ. Proc.,¿§ 583.310.)¿¿ However, under¿Code of Civil Procedure¿section 583.340, “In computing the time within which an action must be brought to trial pursuant to this article, there shall be excluded the time during which any of the following conditions existed:¿(a) The jurisdiction of the court¿to try the action was suspended. (Code of Civil Procedure¿section 583.340.)

As such, the five-year period to bring this case to trial will be tolled during the stay in this matter.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for a stay is GRANTED. The action is STAYED. The Final Status Conference and Trial dates are VACATED.