Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV28088, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV28088 Hearing Date: December 7, 2023 Dept: 39
Mohill Holdings LP
v. LA-Fig Parking Lot Lessee, LLC
Case No.
23STCV28088
Minute Order
THE COURT ORDERS THE PARTIES TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING,
EITHER REMOTELY OR IN-PERSON TO DISCUSS THIS TENTATIVE ORDER (I.E., THE PARTIES
MAY NOT WAIVE THEIR APPEARANCE BY SUBMITTING TO THIS ORDER).
Plaintiff
Mohill Holdings LP (“Plaintiff”) filed this unlawful detainer action against
LA-Fig Parking Lot Lessee, LLC (“Defendant”) on November 13, 2023. Defendant demurs under Code of Civil
Procedure section 430.10(c) based upon a pending arbitration. In brief, the parties disagree over the rental
amount. (See Declaration of Navi Singh
Dhillon, Exh. B, ¶¶ 16-17, 26.) Per the
lease, that dispute must be resolved by way of arbitration. (See Complaint, Exh. #1, p. 19, ¶ 51.) Defendant served an arbitration demand on
June 26, 2023. (See Declaration of Navi
Singh Dhillon, Exh. B.) Defendant
requested a declaration that the lease provides for a 99-year fixed term ending
on August 1, 2114, and that the rent is $45,000 per month, and that Defendant
cannot raise the rent. (Id., p. 8.)
Notwithstanding
the arbitration, Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action. There are two problems with Plaintiff’s case. First, the trier of fact cannot determine whether
Plaintiff is entitled to possession until the arbitrator decides whether
Plaintiff was entitled to increase the rent under the lease. Even if that is not a basis to sustain
Defendant’s demurrer under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(c), it may be
a basis to stay this case based upon the Court’s inherent authority. The Court is concerned that Plaintiff is
engaged in gamesmanship in an effort to circumvent the arbitration
agreement. Second, this case does not
satisfy the $25,000 threshold to proceed in an unlimited civil court. In the complaint, Plaintiff indicated that
this case satisfies the jurisdictional threshold to proceed in an unlimited
civil court because “[the] amount demanded exceeds $25,000,” based upon which
the case was assigned to Department #39.
That is not correct, however. All
claims for unpaid rent must be resolved by way of arbitration, and Plaintiff’s
counsel concedes in the opposition that Plaintiff seeks only to recover
possession in this action. (See
Plaintiff’s Opposition, p. 1:3-10.)
Plaintiff
asks the Court to take judicial notice of a record of the Secretary of State
indicating that Defendant’s standing with the Franchise Tax Board is “not good”
and its status is “forfeited.” In
general, a corporation may not prosecute or defend an action while its
corporate rights are suspected for failure to pay taxes. (See Bourhis v. Lord (2013) 56 Cal.4th
320, 324.) Defendant’s counsel
represents that Defendant paid the taxes upon learning of this issue and
expects its corporate status to be restored shortly. (See Declaration of Navi Singh Dhillon, ¶
3.) The Court need not resolve this
dispute at this time.
Based upon
the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:
1. The Court continues the hearing on
Defendant’s demurrer to January 4, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. The Court orders Defendant’s counsel to file
a declaration and any necessary exhibits concerning his client’s corporate
status on or before December 29, 2023.
2. The Court advances the hearing on
Plaintiff’s motion to strike the demurrer from February 1, 2024, to January 4,
2024, at 1:30 p.m. Defendant’s counsel
may file an opposition, and Plaintiff’s counsel may file a reply brief, based
upon statutory deadlines.
3. The Court issues an Order to Show Cause
why this case should not be stayed pending completion of the parties’
arbitration. The OSC hearing shall be
held on January 4, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. at the following location:
Stanley
Mosk Courthouse
111 North Hill Street
Department #39 (Goorvitch, J.)
Los Angeles, California 90012
The parties may appear remotely or in-person. Plaintiff’s counsel shall file an opposition,
and Defendant’s counsel may file a reply brief, based upon statutory
deadlines.
4. The Court notices its own motion for
reclassification, per Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040. As discussed, this case does not appear to
involve any claim for monetary damages, suggesting that it should be
transferred to the Unlawful Detainer Hub for trial solely on the issue of
possession. The hearing on the motion
shall be held on January 4, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. at the following location:
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
111 North Hill Street
Department #39 (Goorvitch, J.)
Los Angeles, California 90012
The parties may appear remotely or in-person. The parties may file a response on or before
December 29, 2023.
5. The Court advances and continues the
case management conference from December 14, 2023, to January 4, 2024, at 1:30
p.m.
6. Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide
notice and file proof of such with the Court.