Document for Pacific Union International, Inc. vs. Ludwick, Erik et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                WoO NNO OK
                    SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER                                  fir MOAN{2   C



  Date: August 4, 2022                                      Time: 8:20AM
  Judge: Michael W. Jones                                   Dept: Department 3
  Reporter: MA                                              Clerk: Cpr Nanaiiec

                                                                     dmwny
Pacific \     International, Inc. vs. Ludwick, Erik et al   Prep                     _ [Present     COM
 ll CO                                                                                                om
Sas   Tre                                                                             Ci Present
                                                                                        ¥ SWE              NO

                                                                                             Cara >
(_] And related Cross Action(s)                             Case # S-CV-0042080

                                            Law and Motion Minutes                                      P

Proceedings RE: Motion: Stay -

C] Dropped.               (J Continued to            CJ by Plaintiff (] by Defendant
                                                                C1] by Stipulation    [] by Court
Matter      argued and submitted.
(] submitted on points and authorities without [_] argument [_] appearance.
C] Motion/Petition granted.       [] Motion/Petition denied.
[] Demurrer [] sustained [1] overruled [J without [J with leave to] amend [J answer.
(] Counsel appointed for:
(_] Taken under submission.
(J Debtor is sworn and retired with counsel for examination.

(J Stipulation to [JJudge Pro Tem []Commissioner executed in open court.
C1] Counsel for        to prepare the written order and submit it to opposing counsel for approval as
   to content and form.

(J Other

   The tentative ruling is adopted as the ruling of the court, to wit:

 Defendants’ Motion for Stay Pending Appeal or, Alternative, Leave to File Cross-Complaint



        Ruling on Request for Judicial Notice



Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is granted under Evidence Code section 452.




                          NUN          HN
           Ruling on Motion



The motion is denied.    In the current request, defendants seek either a stay of the current

litigation pending resolution of an appeal in a separate case before the Second District Court of

Appeal or, alternatively, for leave to file a cross-complaint.   The court declines to grant either

request.



The court has inherent authority to stay a proceeding where it promotes the interests of justice

and judicial efficiency. (Code of Civil Procedure section 128(a)(8); Freiberg v. City of Mission

Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) Neither the interests of justice nor judicial efficiency

support a stay of this action pending resolution of the appeal in the Los Angeles Court case.



The two cases are related as they involve the same parties but have been at completely separate

procedural stances for a considerable amount of time. The current action is at issue with trial set

to proceed this coming Monday, August 8, 2022. This is compared to the Los Angeles Court

case, which was still in the process of challenging the sufficiency of the pleadings when the trial

court sustained the most recent demurrer without leave to amend.       That order is now on appeal.

Numerous attempts have been made to either change venue or have the two cases coordinated.

Each attempt has been denied.    Proceeding with this action will not render the appeal futile nor

will it upset the status quo. As previously stated, this case has had a significantly different

procedural posture and is ready to proceed to trial. There would be no difference in the status of

this case whether or not the appeal was filed. The action continues to be at issue and confirmed

for trial. The interests of justice will not be promoted by a stay of this case. To the contrary, a

stay would adversely impact plaintiff's right to proceed with trial and resolve the matter, which

has been pending for more than three and half years. Judicial efficiency and the interests of

justice support resolution of this case rather than a further delay.
Nor have defendants made a sufficient showing to support the filing of a cross-complaint at this

juncture. A defendant who fails to file a cross-complaint at the time of filing the answer must

seek leave from the court to file the cross-complaint.    (Code of Civil Procedure sections 426.50,

428.50(a).) Leave to file a compulsory cross-complaint is generally granted unless the defendant

has not acted in good faith or there is substantial prejudice to the plaintiff if leave is granted.

(Silver Organization Ltd. v. Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 98-100; Foot’s Transfer &

Storage Co. v. Superior Court (1980) 114 Cal.App.3d 897, 902-903.)          Leave to file a permissive

cross-complaint may be granted in the interests of justice. (Crocker National Bank v. Emerald

(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 852, 864.)


The proposed cross-complaint alleges ten causes of action with claims including breach of

fiduciary duty; breach of contract; interference with contractual relationship; and fraud.      The

proposed pleading appears to be substantially similar to the complaint currently on appeal in the

Second District Court of Appeal.     This action has been pending since November 7, 2018 with

defendants filing their answer on May 24, 2019. There has already been a significant amount of

pre-trial litigation, including multiple attempts to either change venue or coordinate the action.

Further, trial in the matter has already been continued on six separate occasions.      Defendants

have had ample time to seek leave to file a cross-complaint in this action but chose not to do so.

It was only after the Los Angeles Court sustained a challenge to their pleading without leave to

amend that defendants opted to seek leave in this action, brought on the eve of trial. The court

finds sufficient evidence exists to show defendants’ actions to seek leave to file the eleventh hour

cross-complaint was not brought in good faith.



Moreover, the court finds there is sufficient evidence to establish prejudice to plaintiff if

defendants were allowed to file this eleventh hour cross-complaint.       To reiterate, the proposed
cross-complaint alleges ten new causes of action. These new claims will require additional

discovery in a case where discovery is closed and trial has already been continued six times. If

defendants were allowed to file the cross-complaint, plaintiff would be required to conduct

further discovery, engage in further pre-trial litigation, and further delay trial. All of this would

be highly prejudicial to plaintiff. For the foregoing reasons, the motion is denied in its entirety.



//