Statistico, Inc. v. Jamila Rivera
Case No: 17CV05412
Hearing Date: Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Stay Proceedings

Statistico, Inc., v. Jamila Rivera, #17CV05412, Judge Sterne

Hearing Date: March 26, 2018

Matter: Defendant’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings

Attorneys:

For Plaintiff: Jonathan D. Weidman

For Defendant: Eric Berg

Tentative Ruling: The court grants defendant Jamila Rivera’s motion to stay this proceeding until resolution of property issues in Case No. 17FL02825.

Background: On November 30, 2017, plaintiff Statistico, Inc., filed its complaint against defendant Jamila Rivera. Statistico alleges:

Statistico, established in 2012, owns a website with the domain name “open-public-records.com” (the “Domain”). Sam Rokni is the president, CEO, and sole shareholder of Statistico. The Domain operates a special algorithm that Rokni developed and created. The algorithm extracts, compiles and formats public records information into a searchable database, and optimizes that data for search engines. The Domain earns its money through advertising on the site. Beginning on or about November 15, 2017, and continuing to the present time, Rivera took over the Domain, changed the codes and passwords and excluded Statistico therefrom. If Rivera is not enjoined from denying Statistico access to the Domain and from granting her or her agents access to the Domain, Statistico will suffer great and irreparable harm in that its business, goodwill, confidential client information, optimized internet search engine ranking, and the entire business itself may be permanently lost and destroyed. (Statistico does not allege that Rivera has caused any damage.) Statistico seeks an injunction and damages for conversion and misappropriation.

On January 8, 2018, the court ordered this case related to Case No. 17FL02825, the proceeding for dissolution of the marriage of Rokni and Rivera, who were married in 2009.

Motion to Stay Proceedings: Rivera moves to stay this action until the related family law action is adjudicated. Rivera contends that the dissolution case has exclusive jurisdiction over the ownership and right to control Statistico. Statistico opposes the motion, contending that the family law action is irrelevant to this action, in which Statistico seeks to remedy Rivera’s actions usurping control of the corporation and causing it damage. Statistico also says the motion was not timely served. Rivera counters that the opposition was untimely, field and served only six court days before the hearing, one day before a reply was due.

1. Timeliness of Pleadings: The court does not mean to minimize the failure to timely serve the motion. The late service of the opposition can be attributed at least in part to the untimely service of the motion. The appropriate remedy would be to continue the hearing, which neither party asks the court to do. The parties have fully briefed the matter and the court will consider the merits.

2. Stay of Proceedings: “After a family law court acquires jurisdiction to divide community property in a dissolution action, no other department of a superior court may make an order adversely affecting that division. … Obviously, the actual division of community property is affected by the characterization of specific assets, so the issue of characterization also reposes in the family law court.” Askew v. Askew, 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 961-962 (1994). When a civil action is duplicative of a family law matter, a stay of the civil action is warranted. Id. at 966 n38. “Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo, 33 Cal. App. 4th 1484, 1489 (1995)

In the family law matter, the court will decide the characterization and, possibly, the distribution of the shares of Statistico. Here, the issue is whether one spouse has usurped a corporate asset and is damaging the corporation. Shareholders have no legal title to or right to possession of the assets or capital of the corporation. In re Mercantile Guar. Co., 263 Cal.App.2d 346, 352 (1968); Union Bank v. Anderson, 232 Cal.App.3d 941, 949 (1991).

Still, control of the corporation is essentially control of the assets. The issues of corporate ownership and control will be decided in the family law matter. A determination of those issues will determine who has the right to control this litigation and the corporate assets. The court will order this case stayed while the family law matter proceeds.

The court grants defendant Jamila Rivera’s motion to stay this proceeding until resolution of property issues in Case No. 17FL02825.