2017-00224116-CU-OE
Lillian Craven vs. APRO, LLC
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion to Stay

Mann, Jeffrey J.

Defendants’ motion to stay this action pending determination of their petition to compel
arbitration, now set for hearing on 5/9/2018, is GRANTED as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise him/her of Local Rule 1.06 and the court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing in person or by telephone.

The notice of motion does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1010 or CRC Rule 3.1110(a).

This action was commenced by plaintiff on 12/18/2017. The complaint purports to assert a single cause of action under the Private Attorneys General Act based on various alleged violation of the wage-and-hour provisions in the Labor Code. Defendants filed a petition to compel arbitration on 3/21/2018, with an original hearing date of 4/19/2018. On 3/6/2018 plaintiff sought and obtained an order continuing the 4/19/2018 hearing to 5/9/2018, in response to which defendants sought and obtained an order shortening time on the present motion to stay this action pending determination of their petition to compel arbitration.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1281.4, defendants seek a stay of this action pending determination of their petition to compel arbitration which is now set for hearing on 5/9/2018. Plaintiff opposes.

Code of Civil Procedure §1281.4 provides in pertinent part:

“If an application has been made to a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, for an order to arbitrate a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State and such application is undetermined, 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 the application for an order to arbitrate is determined and, if arbitration of such controversy is ordered, until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies. (Underline added for emphasis.)

Aside from this plain mandatory statutory language, the Second District Court of Appeal unequivocally held in Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 188:

This statute is clear and unambiguous: [I]t requires that the trial court stay an action pending before it while an application to arbitrate the subject matter of the action is pending in a court of competent jurisdiction. (Marcus v. Superior Court (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 204, 209.) There is no specific or implied exception contained within the statute to preclude its application for dilatory action by a party seeking to arbitrate the matter. Relief based on such a claim should be presented to the court entertaining the application to arbitrate, as well as any substantive arguments relating to whether arbitration is appropriate under the facts presented. (Twentieth Century Fox, at 192 (underline added for emphasis).)

In light of the foregoing, this court is without discretion to deny the request to stay this action pending determination of defendants’ petition to compel arbitration. Therefore, the present motion for a stay must be and hereby is granted.

The court notes that any response to the underlying petition to compel arbitration shall be filed and served in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §1290.6.