Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV11687, Date: 2023-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11687    Hearing Date: October 3, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On May 24, 2023, Plaintiff Maggie Parsons filed this action against Defendants Robert Ozeran and Law Offices of Robert Ozeran Inc. (“Firm”).  The Complaint alleges (1) breach of oral agreement; (2) breach of implied-in-face contract; (3) promissory estoppel; (4) restitution (unjust enrichment); (5) conversion; (6) fraud; (7) promissory fraud; (8) quiet title; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); (10) false imprisonment; (11) assault and battery; (12) sexual battery; (13) negligence; (14) defamation per se; (15) defamation per quod; (16) trade libel; (17) declaratory relief; (18) accounting; (19) quantum meruit; (20) Labor Code violations; and (21) tortious breach of contract.

On August 17, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to stay this action pending the resolution of family law case In re: Marriage of Ozeran and Parsons, Case No. 23CHFL00714 (“Dissolution Action”).

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendants’ request for judicial notice of filings in the Dissolution Action (Exs. A-D) is granted.  In doing so, the Court takes judicial notice of the documents’ existence and the issues presented to the family law court, and not the truth of the contents as fact.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice of the Complaint (RJN, Ex. E) is denied as unnecessary because the Complaint is already part of this case’s record.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of Department 1’s September 5, 2023 order is denied as unnecessary because that order is already part of this case’s record.

DISCUSSION

Defendants argue that the claims in this action “arise from allegations of facts, events, and circumstances occurring during Ozeran’s and Parsons’ relationship, and the vast majority of the claims seek the same relief” that is sought in the Dissolution Action.  (Motion at p. 4.)  Defendants therefore seek a stay under the Court’s inherent authority to control the cases on its docket, forum non conveniens, and Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10.  (Motion at pp. 4-5.)

On September 5, 2023, Department 1 declined to relate this action and the Dissolution Action, finding that “the cases do not involve the same parties or the same claims,” “[t]he cases do not arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact,” and “[t]he cases do not involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property.”  This Department will not act as a “one-judge appellate court” and disturb those findings.  (See In re Marriage of Oliverez (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1248.)  Accordingly, the Court concludes that forum non conveniens and Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 do not provide a basis for the requested stay.

The Court also declines to issue a stay under its inherent authority.  According to the Petition in the Dissolution Action, Parsons and Ozeran married on November 22, 2022, and separated on April 15, 2023.  (RJN, Ex. A at p. 1; see Complaint ¶ 28.)  As Department 1 noted, “Plaintiff’s claims are largely based upon the premarital conduct of the parties,” and the Dissolution Action “will not dispose of the parties’ separate property.”  Plaintiff’s fraud and property-based claims arise from Ozeran’s premarital promises that induced Plaintiff to move to California from Florida (first, second, third, sixth, seventh, twenty-first causes of action), Plaintiff’s investment of premarital separate property into the Firm and an investment property (fourth, eighth, seventeenth, eighteenth causes of action), and Ozeran’s conversion of premarital property (fifth cause of action).  Plaintiff’s claims for IIED (ninth), false imprisonment (tenth), assault and battery (eleventh), sexual battery (twelfth), negligence (thirteenth), and defamation (fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth) are completely outside the scope of the Dissolution Action, as are her claims arising from her employment at the Firm (nineteenth, twentieth).

There is no overlap in the claims in this action and the Dissolution Action, and staying this action until the resolution of the Dissolution Action does not further judicial economy.

CONCLUSION

The Motion For Stay of Proceedings is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 3rd day of October 2023