Case Number: BC615086 Hearing Date: November 28, 2018 Dept: 3

CHRIS IRWIN, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

RADNET, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC615086

[TENTATIVE] ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY CASE

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

November 28, 2018

On April 1, 2016, Plaintiffs Chris Irwin (“Chris”) and Natalia Irwin (“Natalia”) filed this action against Defendants Radnet, Inc., San Fernando Valley Interventional Radiology and Imaging Center (“San Fernando”), Radnet Managed Imaging Services, Inc., Dr. Susie Muir (“Dr. Muir”), Assistant DOE 1 and DOES 2 through 40, inclusive, for negligence and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs allege Defendants dropped or allowed Chris to fall after injecting him in preparation for an MRI of his shoulder.

On 9/15/16, the Court issued an order compelling arbitration and staying litigation in this matter. The motion to compel arbitration was made by all of the defendants, and was granted in its entirety.

On 11/16/17, Defendants, Muir and Radnet filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings, wherein they indicate this case is stayed due to a liquidation proceeding filed in Washington, D.C. From 11/16/17 to the present, the parties have not litigated the action.

On 9/15/18, Defendants filed the instant motion for an order staying proceedings. Defendants seek a court order declaring the case stayed at least until the 12/14/18 status conference in the liquidation proceedings. Any opposition to the motion was due on or before 11/13/18. CCP §1005(b). Plaintiffs filed untimely opposition on 11/15/18. The Court has not read or considered the opposition.

Pursuant to Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 515, 533, the trial court retains only limited jurisdiction over an action once it enters an order compelling arbitration. Per CCP §1292.6, the trial court retains jurisdiction to entertain a subsequent petition to confirm, vacate, and/or modify an arbitration award. The trial court does not, however, have jurisdiction over all aspects of the action.

The Court has reviewed its file in this case, and no party has ever sought or been granted relief from the 9/15/16 stay of litigation. The Court therefore declines to substantively rule on the motion before it, as the case remains under the arbitration stay at this time.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.