Code of Civil Procedure, section 1281.4 provides that “[i]f a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, has ordered arbitration of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” Code Civ. Proc., § 1281.4; Cardiff Equities, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1541, 1551.
A “controversy” for purposes of this section is “any question arising between parties to an agreement whether such question is one of law or of fact or both.” Code Civ. Proc., §1280(c). “A controversy can be a single question of law or fact, and a stay shall be issued upon proper motion if the court has ordered arbitration of a controversy that is also an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before it. Thus, a single overlapping issue is sufficient to require imposition of a stay.” Cardiff Equities, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1551.
The purpose of section 1281.4 is to protect the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until the arbitration is resolved. MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643, 660. Preserving the arbitrator’s jurisdiction through a stay of related litigation is essential to the enforceability of an arbitration agreement because, otherwise, a party could simply litigate claims that it agreed to arbitrate. MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643, 660. “In the absence of a stay, the continuation of the proceedings in the trial court disrupts the arbitration proceedings and can render them ineffective.” Heritage Provider Network, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1152.
For matters that have been submitted to arbitration, therefore, a court has only vestigial jurisdiction and it may not lift the stay when it would interfere with the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 227, 238. The policy underlying the breadth of the stay provision in section 1281.4 is generally cited as protecting the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by preserving the status quo until arbitration is resolved, so that proceedings in the trial court do not disrupt the arbitration proceedings and render them ineffective. Brock v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1790, 1796; Titan/Value Equities Group, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 482, 488-489.
The court of appeal in Titan observed, in fact: “‘[A]n arbitration has a life of its own outside the judicial system.’ [Byerly v. Sale (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1312,] 1316. The trial court may not step into a case submitted to arbitration and tell the arbitrator what to do and when to do it: it may not resolve procedural questions, order discovery, determine the status of claims before the arbitrator or set the case for trial because of a party’s alleged dilatory conduct. It is for the arbitrator, and not the court, to resolve such questions.” Titan/Value Equities Group, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 482, 489.
Under California law, a trial court may properly lift a stay of proceedings pursuant to the portion of Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 that provides that a trial court may stay an action until arbitration is completed, “or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg & Tunney v. Lawrence (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1165,1172. A trial court is granted “discretion to lift a stay prior to the completion of arbitration only under circumstances in which lifting the stay would not frustrate the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.” MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 643, 660.
Once a controversy is submitted to arbitration, it remains before the arbitrators until they have completed their determination of the matters unless the parties mutually agree to withdraw it. Gerard v. Salter (1957) 146 Cal.App.2d 840; see also Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 11-13 (discussion of legislative history of California arbitration statutes).
...Herr MD and Natalyn Bergman RN’s Motion for Summary Judgment –CONTINUED to March 12, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22. CV-18-000302 – AMMAR, NEAL VS. HANTASH, BASIL M, MD – Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay Entered in Civil Proceedings – CONTINUED to March 12, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22.
Feb 14, 2020
...to February 14, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22. CV-18-000302 – AMMAR, NEAL VS. HANTASH, BASIL M, MD – Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay Entered in Civil Proceedings – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to February 14, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22. CV-19-001233 – PAINTER, JOHN VS. WESTERN TELESIS CORPORATION – Third Party Security National Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to Intervene – G...
Feb 7, 2020
...Prohibiting Plaintiff from Filing Any New Litigation The court considered the moving and reply papers. There is no opposition although the court considered the opposition filed in 19TRCV00603. RULING The motion is GRANTED. The court orders that plaintiff furnish a security in the amount of $50,000 within ten days. BACKGROUND On July 18, 2019, plaintiff Aasir Azzarmi (self-represented) filed a complaint aga...
...under Labor Code 98.6 and 1101, (3) retaliation – FEHA, (4) retaliation – public policy, (5) harassment, (6) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, (7) wrongful demotion – FEHA, (8) wrongful demotion – public policy, (9) wrongful termination – FEHA, (10) wrongful termination – public policy (Tameny), (11) wrongful termination – public policy (religious discrimination), (12) IIED, (13) invasion of ...
Feb 4, 2020
...Litigant, Requiring Plaintiff to Post Security, and for Pre-Filing Order Prohibiting Plaintiff from Filing Any New Litigation The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. RULING The motion is GRANTED. The court orders that plaintiff furnish a security in the amount of $50,000 within ten days. BACKGROUND On July 18, 2019, plaintiff Aasir Azzarmi (self-represented) filed a complaint aga...
...under Labor Code 98.6 and 1101, (3) retaliation – FEHA, (4) retaliation – public policy, (5) harassment, (6) failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, (7) wrongful demotion – FEHA, (8) wrongful demotion – public policy, (9) wrongful termination – FEHA, (10) wrongful termination – public policy (Tameny), (11) wrongful termination – public policy (religious discrimination), (12) IIED, (13) invasion of ...
Feb 4, 2020
1. Plaintiff Edwards Motion to Lift Stay 2. Case Management Conference On 7/26/19, the court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed plaintiff’s PAGA claims pending the outcome of the arbitration. On 9/17/19,...
...On 9/17/19, plaintiff dismissed her individual claims, leaving only her PAGA claim which is not subject to arbitration. Because there is nothing to arbitrate, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to lift the stay is granted.
Jan 24, 2020
...(e). The Court intends to rule as follows; To deny Plaintiff DW Berry Farm's motion to lift stay and vacate prior order compelling arbitration. Plaintiff's motion, at this time, is framed as an untimely motion for reconsideration under CCP §1008. To the extent it is not and this court has considered plaintiff's "impossibility" argument, the argument is not supported by evidence accompanying the moving paper...
Jan 21, 2020
Plaintiff Liguori Ventures II, LLC's Motion to Seal Records Contained in Receiver's First Interim Report is denied. California Rules of Court, rule 2.550 authorizes the court to seal records only if it expressly finds: (1) an overriding intere...
...or will be withdrawn no later than January 17, 2020. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(6).) ____________________________________________________ No tentative ruling. on the renewed motion to lift stay. The court will hear from the parties as to whether the commencement of discovery will interfere with the sale of the assets.
Jan 9, 2020
Plaintiff Liguori Ventures II, LLC's Motion to Seal Records Contained in Receiver's First Interim Report is denied. California Rules of Court, rule 2.550 authorizes the court to seal records only if it expressly finds: (1) an overriding intere...
...or will be withdrawn no later than January 17, 2020. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(6).) ____________________________________________________ No tentative ruling. on the renewed motion to lift stay. The court will hear from the parties as to whether the commencement of discovery will interfere with the sale of the assets.
Jan 9, 2020
...LLC’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss Action and to Lift Stay for Dismissal Purposes Only (“Motion”) is denied without prejudice. As a threshold matter, the court lifts the stay in order to hear this motion to dismiss. The Court is now presented with the issue of whether plaintiff Pacific Lighting Sales, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) cannot afford to pay its equal expenses of arbitration as ordered by this Court, o...
...status conferences with this Court. It was not until Defendant filed the present Motion that Plaintiff made the claim. The Court also notes that Plaintiff has since filed its own Motion to Lift Arbitration Stay and Set Trial, which is currently scheduled for 03/09/20. If Plaintiff was able to pay its half of the arbitration expense, but instead refused to do so in order to avoid arbitration, then a dismissal...
Jan 6, 2020
David HOFFER
...LLC’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss Action and to Lift Stay for Dismissal Purposes Only (“Motion”) is denied without prejudice. As a threshold matter, the court lifts the stay in order to hear this motion to dismiss. The Court is now presented with the issue of whether plaintiff Pacific Lighting Sales, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) cannot afford to pay its equal expenses of arbitration as ordered by this Court, o...
...status conferences with this Court. It was not until Defendant filed the present Motion that Plaintiff made the claim. The Court also notes that Plaintiff has since filed its own Motion to Lift Arbitration Stay and Set Trial, which is currently scheduled for 03/09/20. If Plaintiff was able to pay its half of the arbitration expense, but instead refused to do so in order to avoid arbitration, then a dismissal...
Jan 6, 2020
David HOFFER
...order RE: plaintiff’s motion to lift stay In its order of March 9, 2018, this Court granted an ex parte application by Defendants Andre Berger, M.D. and Rejuvalife Medical Associates (“Defendants”) to stay this action based on an order issued by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on October 25, 2017. Plaintiff Sylvia Vasquez (“Plaintiff”) now moves the Court to lift the stay. The District o...
...Court of the District of Columbia then issued an injunction to stay all actions and proceedings against Fairway and its policyholders. Defendants were policyholders of Fairway and moved this Court to stay the present action based on the order of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the Insurance Code. Defendants demonstrated that Fairway is an out-of-state insurer and that the Insurance C...
Dec 13, 2019
...Plaintiff Sacramento Municipal Utility District's ("SMUD") unopposed motion to lift the stay is GRANTED. This matter was stayed pursuant to an ex parte application filed by SMUD requesting the matter be stayed during a pending appeal. The appeal is now concluded and a remittitur has been issued. Accordingly, the stay should be lifted. Defendant David Kwan filed a response joining the motion and asking th...
...file a noticed motion accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2024.050(a) and 2024.060.) Thus, the matter of reopening discovery, raised in an opposition to a motion to lift stay, is not properly before the Court at this time. This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in De...
Nov 18, 2019
reverse mortgage solutions, inc., Plaintiff, v. KMC LANDSCAPING SERVICES INC. & MATTHEW JAY COHICK, Defendants. Case No.: BC695601 Hearing Date: November 15, 2019 [TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION to lift stay BACKGROUND A. Complaint Plaintiff Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. (“RMS”) commenced this action against Defendants KMC Landscaping Services Inc. (“KMC”) and Matthew Jay Cohick (“Cohick”) (collecti...
...a status conference regarding the bankruptcy. KMC’s counsel represented to the Court that the bankruptcy case was still pending. At the status conference, the Court clarified that the entire case was stayed as a result of the pending bankruptcy petition. ANALYSIS Plaintiff RMS moves to amend the Court’s August 20, 2019 order clarifying that the entire case, including claims raised in the Complaint an...
Nov 15, 2019
...2019 [TENTATIVE] order RE: plaintiff’s motion to lift stay On March 9, 2018, this Court (Lu, J.) granted an ex parte application by Defendants Andre Berger, M.D. and Rejuvalife Medical Associates (“Defendants”) to stay this action based on an order issued by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on October 25, 2017. The Court ordered Defendants to file a status report on November 7, 2018, concerning the sta...
...interim, Plaintiff Sylvia Vasquez (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for an order lifting the stay and noticed the motion for hearing on October 3, 2019. However, Plaintiff did not file proof of service of this motion on Defendants. Therefore, the Court continued the hearing to November 7, 2019, and ordered Plaintiff to serve the motion on Defendants. Plaintiff failed to do so. As Defendants have not opposed this m...
Nov 7, 2019
Superior Court of California Marcus marquez, Plaintiff, v. SHAMMAS INVESTMENT LLC et al., Defendants. Case No.: BC698500 Hearing Date: November 6, 2019 [TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION TO LIFT STAY AND for leave to AMEND COMPLAINT Background This is a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action. On March 16, 2018, plaintiff Marcus Marquez (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint against defendants Sham...
...Leave to Amend Plaintiff’s Motion to Lift Stay of Litigation and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend. The court continued the motion to this date and pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1324(c), deemed the instant motion a request to file an amended pleading. (Minute Order, 10/16/19.) The court continued the hearing to provide parties with the opportunity to address any procedural issues with the proposed First Amende...
Nov 6, 2019
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION — TO LIFT STAY [PLTF] GEORGE GEOFFREY LELAND RULING Plaintiffs unopposed motion to lift the stay in this case pursuant to plaintiffs dismissal of defendants Melanie Schulze-Miller and MJ SM, LLC from this action is GRANTED. Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 1...
Nov 6, 2019
JAMES T, CHOU
TENTATIVE RULING Calendar: 12 Date: 11/1/19 Case No.: EC 067250 Case Name: Cannon, et al. v. Bellum Entertainment, LLC, et al. MOTION TO LIFT STAY Moving Party: Plaintiff Teddy Cannon and Christopher Pownall Responding Party: Defendants Bellum Entertainment, LLC, Mary Carol McDonnell and Karen Garber (No Opposition) RELIEF REQUESTED: Lift st...
...A]. On March 1, 2019, the court heard a previous motion by plaintiffs to lift the stay, plaintiffs arguing that defendants had not responded to communications from the AAA concerning the arbitration. The motion was denied without prejudice, as the court was concerned that it was not at that point clear that defendants were in fact refusing to pay the costs of arbitration as agreed or had engaged in conduct r...
Nov 1, 2019
...al. MOTION TO LIFT STAY Moving Party: Defendants Alex Megeredchian, Megeredchian Law, Law Offices of Alex Mederedchian Responding Party: Plaintiff Vehanoosh Grigorian RELIEF REQUESTED: Order lifting stay of this action RULING: Motion to Lift Stay is DENIED. SUMMARY OF FACTS: Plaintiff Vehanoosh Grigorian brings this legal malpractice action against her former attorneys, defendants Alex Megeredchia...
...which is apparently pending in Van Nuys. ANALYSIS: Defendants bring this motion to lift the stay in this matter, based on the language of the Stipulation and Order Staying Action, which states: “The stay may be removed at any time upon a showing of good cause including, by way of example: to obtain injunctive and/or other extraordinary relief; to take the deposition of a witness who is terminally ill ...
Oct 25, 2019
...marquez, on behalf of all other similarly aggrieved employees, Plaintiffs, v. shammas investment llc Defendant. Case No.: BC698500 Hearing Date: October 16, 2019 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to lift stay and File First Amended COmplaint Background This is a representative action seeking recovery of civil penalties under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) and California Labor Code §§ 2698, et ...
...expenses, (7) violations of labor code § 2751. On August 13, 2018, the Hon. Holly Kendig, Department 42, granted a petition to compel arbitration as to Plaintiff’s first two causes of action, and ordered a stay pending the outcome of arbitration as to Plaintiff’s other claims. (Min. Order, 8/13/18.) On September 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to lift stay and for leave to file a first amended co...
Oct 16, 2019
MONICA MEDA, Plaintiff, v. AUTOZONE, INC., et. al., Defendants. Case No.: BC683600 Hearing Date: October 7, 2019 [TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION to lift stay on paga enforcement action BACKGROUND Plaintiff Monica Meda (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, commenced this representative action against Defendants AutoZone, Inc. ...
...before it. [Citation.] Thus, a single overlapping issue is sufficient to require imposition of a stay.’ ” (Cardiff, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at 1551.) CCP section 1281.4 “grants a trial court discretion to lift a stay prior to the completion of arbitration only under circumstances in which lifting the stay would not frustrate the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.” (MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 ...
Oct 7, 2019
MONICA MEDA, Plaintiff, v. AUTOZONE, INC., et. al., Defendants. Case No.: BC683600 Hearing Date: October 7, 2019 [TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION to lift stay on paga enforcement action BACKGROUND Plaintiff Monica Meda (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, commenced this representative action against Defendants AutoZone, Inc. ...
...before it. [Citation.] Thus, a single overlapping issue is sufficient to require imposition of a stay.’ ” (Cardiff, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at 1551.) CCP section 1281.4 “grants a trial court discretion to lift a stay prior to the completion of arbitration only under circumstances in which lifting the stay would not frustrate the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.” (MKJA, Inc. v. 123 Fit Franchising, LLC (2011) 191 ...
Oct 7, 2019
...2019 [TENTATIVE] order RE: plaintiff’s motion to lift stay On March 9, 2018, this Court (Lu, J.) granted an ex parte application by Defendants Andre Berger, M.D. and Rejuvalife Medical Associates (“Defendants”) to stay this action based on an order issued by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on October 25, 2017. The Court ordered Defendants to file a status report on November 7, 2018, concerning the sta...
...interim, Plaintiff Sylvia Vasquez (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion for an order lifting the stay. Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service of this motion on Defendants. As Defendants have not opposed this motion, the Court cannot determine if Defendants received actual notice of this motion. Therefore, the Court cannot consider this motion. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Based upon the foregoing, this motion is conti...
Oct 3, 2019
Cross-Defendant Old Republic General Insurance Corporation’s (“Old Republic”) unopposed motion to lift stay is GRANTED. The stay is no longer necessary. On June 3, 2019, a notice of settlement was filed in the underlying action, Gonzalez v. Pacific Hydrotech Corporation. Due to this settlement, there is no risk of inconsistent ...
Oct 1, 2019
9 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 12 ERIC S. NICHOLS, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, 13 TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION Plaintiff, TO VACATE STAY PENDING 14 ARBITRATION vs. 16 CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, a 17 Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 23 I. INTRODUCTION 24 According to t...
...arbitration agreement. The parties 10 agreed the class claims should be dismissed, Plaintiff should pursue his claims in arbitration on 11 an individual basis, and Plaintiff’s claims in Nichols I should be stayed. The parties entered into 12 a stipulation and order in Nichols II to stay Nichols II during the pendency of the arbitration of 13 Nichols I. On May 8, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed Nichols I without pr...
Sep 20, 2019
...[amendments to complaint prior to anti-SLAPP are generally prohibited].) Plaintiffs/Petitioners NAACP San Diego Branch, San Diego Tenant Union and Darlisa McDowell (hereinafter collectively "petitioners") Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. Petitioners fail to show the probability of prevailing on the merits of the action. Petitioners failed to demonstrate disparate impact as required on petitioners...
...(2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 182, 193-194.) Petitioners' Motion to Lift Anticipated Automatic Discovery Stay ("Motion to Lift Stay") is GRANTED, in part. Petitioners have established good cause to lift the stay on discovery which resulted from SDHC's anti-SLAPP motion filed on August 22, 2019. However, the court will only allow limited discovery which is relevant to the issues on the anti-SLAPP motion. (Wils...
Sep 12, 2019
