Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: BC708813, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC708813 Hearing Date: December 5, 2024 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: December
5, 2024
CASE NAME: Lester
Singer, et al. v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC
CASE NO.: BC709021; related to BC708813
(lead case)
MOTION
FOR AN ORDER TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs
Lester Singer and Monica Mercado
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Greystar California,
Inc.
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An
Order staying the matter pending appeal.
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Motion
to Stay Proceedings is DENIED.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On June 6, 2018, Plaintiffs Lester Singer and Monica
Mercado (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Greystar (“Defendant.”) The
complaint alleged six causes of action: (1) Premises Liability, (2) Negligence,
(3) Battery, (4) Assault, (5) Assault, and (6) Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress. The complaint alleges that they were tenants of Watermarke.
On February 4, 2018, they visited the 7th Floor, private tenants-only
recreational area to meet with some other acquaintances who were also Watermarke
tenants. They alleged that on the 7th Floor, unknown individuals aggressively
confronted plaintiffs and their acquaintances. Mercado witnessed these unknown
individuals beating Singer before fleeing. This physical altercation allegedly
caused Singer to suffer major physical injury and both plaintiffs to suffer
extreme mental anguish, pain and suffering. Plaintiffs allege on information
and belief that the individuals who assaulted Singer were not tenants, but
gained access to Watermarke through an Airbnb lodging arrangement.
On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed two Amendments to
Complaint (Ficititious/Incorrect Name) naming Does 1 and 2 as Greystar RS CA,
Inc., and ASB Watermarke Owner, LLC.
On July 12, 2022, the scheduled trial was continued.
On August 17, 2022, Defendants filed a Demurrer, which was
SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.
On March 6, 2023, the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s
motion for leave to amend to correct the name of Defendant
Greystar.
On May 2, 2023, trial commenced in this action. On May 3,
2023, trial resumed in this action, and Defendant Greystar made an oral Motion
for Judgment of Non-Suit, which was granted.
On May 19, 2023, Judgment was entered in Defendant
Greystar’s favor.
On June 6, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for Attorney Fees
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 128.5 which the court DENIED.
On June 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal
of the Judgment entered on May 19, 2023.
On September 19, 2023, the court GRANTED Judgment filed.
On August 2, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for a
stay of proceedings. On November 20, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition. Replies
were due on or before November 26, 2024. As of December 3, 2024, the court has
not received a reply.
LEGAL STANDARD:
A court ordinarily has inherent power, in its discretion, to
stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice. (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111,
141.) The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in
every court to control the disposition of the cause on its docket with the
economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. (Id.) Trial courts generally have
inherent power to stay proceedings in the interest of justice and to promote
judicial efficiency. (Freiberg v. City of
Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.)
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiffs contend the court should stay the matter pending
appeal because there was no money judgment and a stay will avoid inconsistent
results. Defendant argues Plaintiff’s motion has no merit because they are
simply seeking to delay paying the Judgment against them.
As a threshold matter, Plaintiff relies on inapplicable code
sections to seek relief here. Plaintiffs’ motion is deficient for other
reasons, too.
The suppliant for a stay must make out a clear case of
hardship or inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair
possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to someone else.
(Landis v. North American Co. (1936)
299 U.S. 248, 255.) In law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to
the court by way of declarations. (Calcor
Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.) Here, Plaintiff
provided no supporting evidence for their motion.
Accordingly,
Plaintiffs’ motion for a stay is DENIED.
CONCLUSION:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
1. Motion
to Stay Proceedings is DENIED.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 5, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court