Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 22AHCV01391, Date: 2024-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV01391, Date: 2024-04-30 Tentative Ruling

On December 23, 2022, plaintiff Joy CA, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants South Atlantic Investment LLC (“South Atlantic”), Wei “Jason” Chen (“Chen”), and Cuong C. Luu aka Robert Luu (“Luu”). Plaintiff alleges gross negligence and willful misconduct in the maintenance of the premises located 111 N. Atlantic Blvd, Unit 228, Monterey Park, where Plaintiff operates Pocket 8, a pool and snooker playing business. The premises are owned by South Atlantic, whose sole managing member is Chen. Luu is the property manager of the premises. Plaintiff alleges that beginning on July 19, 2020, and throughout 2020 and 2021, Pocket 8 would regularly experience water leakage and flooding, but that South Atlantic, Chen, and Luu (collectively, “Defendants”) would not take the necessary steps to repair any damage caused by the water or prevent the flooding from reoccurring.

On March 20, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendants filed a stipulation in which they agreed to attend mediation on May 2, 2023, and submit to arbitration if the mediation was unsuccessful (the “Stipulation”). The parties agreed that the arbitration will be conducted by a single neutral arbitrator who is a retired judge or justice, or an attorney with at least 5 years real estate transactional law experience, unless the parties mutually agree to a different arbitrator. If the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, the Court will, upon motion, appoint one pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.6.

On August 17, 2023, Plaintiff amended the Complaint to designate Tang Gong Restaurant Group, LLC (“Tang Gong”) as Doe 1. On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff designated Tang Gong as Doe 11, Doe 21, Doe 31, Doe 41, Doe 51, Doe 61, and Doe 71. Tang Gong filed an answer on October 20, 2023. In Plaintiff’s opposition to this motion, Plaintiff represents that Defendants blame Tang Gong, a restaurant located a floor above Plaintiff’s bar, for the water leaks. (Opp., p. 3.) Plaintiff also states that Chen is the sole manager of Tang Gong, in addition to being the sole manager of South Atlantic.

On April 3, 2024, Defendants filed this motion requesting the Court appoint an arbitrator pursuant to the Stipulation.

When a petition is made to the court to appoint a neutral arbitrator, the court shall nominate five persons from lists of persons supplied jointly by the parties to the arbitration or obtained from a governmental agency concerned with arbitration or private disinterested association concerned with arbitration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.6.) The parties to the agreement who seek arbitration and against whom arbitration is sought may within five days of receipt of notice of the nominees from the court jointly select the arbitrator whether or not the arbitrator is among the nominees. (Ibid.) If the parties fail to select an arbitrator within the five-day period, the court shall appoint the arbitrator from the nominees. (Ibid.)

Defendants include a list of 14 individuals described as “potential arbitrators offered in this case.” Email correspondence between counsel for both parties shows that around June and July of 2023, there were serious discussions to choose an arbitrator but the parties could not agree. On November 28, 2023, defense counsel Justin Clark suggested that the parties exchange another set of suggested arbitrators for consideration. Then, through December of 2023 and February of 2024, the parties discussed selecting an arbitrator. Plaintiff suggested the parties refrain from choosing an arbitrator until Tang Gong completed initial discovery and participated in mediation with Defendants (as required in Tang Gong’s lease with South Atlantic). Plaintiff also suggested that Plaintiff, Defendants, and Tang Gong should participate in a mediation session. In fact, in its opposition brief, Plaintiff claims (and Defendants do not dispute) that all parties (Plaintiff, Defendants, and Tang Gong) have already agreed to participate in a mediation. In light of this agreement, the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s argument that selecting an arbitrator is premature at this time. Accordingly, the Court continues this hearing to October 30, 2024, to allow the parties time to select a mediator, attend mediation, and if necessary, select an arbitrator. If the Court’s assistance is still necessary by the time of the next hearing, Defendants and Plaintiff must submit a joint list of proposed arbitrators no later than 10 court days before the hearing. If the Court does not receive a joint list, the Court shall nominate 5 individuals from the list of individuals identified in paragraph 13 of Defendants’ petition.

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.