2016-00200804-CU-BC

Alyn Cross vs. Ford Motor Company

Nature of Proceeding: Motion on Shortened Time to Stay Case Pending Mediation

Filed By: O’Neill, Amy

Defendant’s motion for order staying case pending the parties’ mediation currently set for 1/12/2018 is DENIED as follows.

Factual Background

This case arises out of plaintiff’s purchase of a Ford vehicle which she claims is defective and defendant has been unable to repair. Plaintiff previously prevailed on a motion to compel defendant’s further responses to the former’s request for production

and the Court’s 10/23/2017 order specified that defendant was to provide the further responses along with the production of responsive documents no later 12/29/2017. (On its own motion, this Court recently extended that deadline to 1/5/2017.) No trial date has been set but the parties have apparently agreed to hold a mediation which was originally set for November 2017 but is now scheduled for 1/12/2018.

Moving Papers. Defendant now seeks a stay of the entire action until 2/1/2018 on the grounds that defendant has “now admitted liability and offered to provide Plaintiff the full damages she seeks in her Complaint,” mediation has been scheduled for 1/12/2018 and “Neither Ford nor Plaintiff should expend further time and money litigating this matter in light of Ford’s offered satisfaction of Plaintiff’s claims.”

Opposition. Plaintiff opposes, arguing that there is “no basis” for the requested relief to stay the entire case “solely so that [defendant] can avoid its obligations to comply with the Court’s Discovery Order” and that the imposition of a stay will deprive plaintiff of documents and information needed to prepare for the upcoming mediation.

Analysis

At the outset, the Court finds defendant’s claim that it has “now admitted liability” is not borne out by the evidence. In reality, it appears that defendant has simply issued in early December 2017 Code of Civil Procedure §998 offer which it believes represents all the damages plaintiff is entitled to in this case but even assuming arguendo the offer does actually encompass all the damages plaintiff may recover in this action, the mere service of an offer of settlement is clearly not an admission of liability. After all, it is just an offer which plaintiff is not obligated to accept even if it the offer represents all the damages she could recover.

Moreover, while defendant may believe the offer fully compensates plaintiff for her damages, it appears plaintiff does not share this belief and whether she is correct or not is largely irrelevant since plaintiff alone has the right to decide to accept or reject the offer. Thus, unless and until plaintiff actually accepts defendant’s offer of settlement, there is no real or legitimate justification for any stay much less a stay of the entire action. As the opposition points out, plaintiff needs the documents at issue in order to have a productive mediation, the outcome of which cannot now be known.

Finally, as the moving papers tacitly concede, defendant is not entitled to a stay as a matter of right. To the contrary, whether a stay is warranted under the circumstances is left to this Court’s discretion and defendant has not carried its burden of demonstrating sufficient justification for the requested month-long stay of the entire case. It is worth noting that defendant has been aware of its obligation to provide the further responses and to produce the responsive documents for well over two months and the unfortunate situation in which it now finds itself (i.e., having to devote substantial resources in order to comply with the 10/23/2017 order) is one of defendant’s own creation. For unknown reasons, defendant waited to last the minute to seek relief from the obligation to provide discovery of relevant documents.

Conclusion

For the reasons explained above, defendant’s motion for a stay of this action is denied.