Demurrer; Motion for leave to file first amended complaint; Motion to compel deposition
Case No.: 25CV467995
On April 12, 2022, plaintiff Prashant Tiwari (“Plaintiff”) filed a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) asserting that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of race and national origin, a hostile work environment, retaliation and failure to prevent discrimination, a hostile work environment and retaliation that occurred most recently on February 8, 2022. On November 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a demand for arbitration with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services Inc. (“JAMS”). After respondents Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Infotechnology
Center, U.S.A., Inc.’s motions for summary judgment were granted in part, on July 2, 2024, arbitrator Hon. Robert A. Baines entered a final award denying Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety. On August 16, 2024, respondents filed a petition to confirm the arbitration award. On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a petition to vacate the arbitration award. On June 12, 2025, Plaintiff then filed a complaint, again asserting causes of action for discrimination, a hostile work environment, retaliation and failure to prevent discrimination. On July 12, 2025, the Court [Hon. Hayashi] confirmed the arbitration award and denied Plaintiff’s request to set aside the arbitration award and entered judgment. On September 8, 2025, Plaintiff appealed the judgment.
Defendants Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Infotechnology Center, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Monte Kaehr, Shannon Cummings and Nick Sitarski (collectively, “Defendants”) demur to the complaint. Plaintiff moves for leave to file a first amended complaint and to compel the deposition of PMKs, Kaehr, Cummings and Sitarski.
Here, it appears that the causes of action of the instant complaint are indeed identical to those asserted in the arbitration. Plaintiff’s arguments in opposition are also the same as those currently being made in the appeal before the Sixth District.
The Court hereby stays this case pending the outcome of the appeal. (See Bailey v. Fosca Oil Co. (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 813, 817 (stating that “the power of a court to stay proceedings in circumstances similar to those presented here was inherent at common law and is now vested in the superior courts of this state... [and may be] necessary to prevent a multiplicity of trials and procedures as to identical issues... the inherent power of a trial court to exercise a reasonable control over all proceedings connected with the litigation before it... should be exercised by the courts in order to insure the orderly administration of justice”); see also
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
it”); see also Simmons v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 119, 130 (stating that “[w]here the rights of the parties to the second action cannot be properly determined until the questions raised in the first action are settled the second action should be stayed... [e]quity abhors a multiplicity of actions... [i]t is the policy of the law to reduce to the minimum the number of actions which may subsist between the same parties”).)
The hearing on Defendants’ motion for sanctions, scheduled for June 16, 2026, Defendants’ demurrer, and Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint and motion to compel depositions are continued to March 9, 2027 at 9:00 a.m.
A case management conference is hereby scheduled for December 8, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 6 to check the status of the appeal and to determine whether the hearing on the motions needs to be continued further.
Line Item #6 Case Name: Zhang v. OKBL USA Technology