Steleco LLC et al. v. DPR Construction et al.

Before the Court are two motions filed by defendants DPR Construction, A General Partnership (“DPR”), Amelia Kraus, and Robert Skinner: (1) a motion to dismiss the Complaint, or in the alternative, stay the action; and (2) a motion to compel mediation and arbitration and to stay these proceedings.1 Plaintiffs Steleco LLC (“Steleco”) and Kipling Post LP (“Kipling Post”) (collectively, “Owners”) oppose. The Court (Hon. Panteha E. Saban) ordered supplemental briefing on seven discrete questions and has received supplemental briefing from DPR, Owners, TK Elevator (“TKE”), and Hohbach-Lewin, Inc. (“Hohbach- Lewin” or “HL”). (Order for Supplemental Briefing, Feb. 27, 2026.) As discussed below, the Court tentatively rules as follows: 1. DPR’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. Dismissal is not the appropriate remedy where, as here, the parties have an ongoing arbitration, and the threshold issue is not justiciability but rather the appropriate forum.

2. DPR’s motion to compel mediation and arbitration is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. a. The motion is GRANTED as to: Steleco LLC; Kipling Post LP; DPR Construction; subcontractors holding the standard flow-down arbitration provision (as identified herein); Hohbach-Lewin, Inc.; Consolidated Engineering Laboratories on claims arising under their respective contracts with DPR; and DPR employees Amelia Kraus and Robert Skinner. b. The motion is DENIED as to: KO Architects, Inc.; TK Elevator Corporation; Bigge Crane and Rigging Co.; Berkeley Cement, Inc.; and as to claims arising solely under the Owner-direct professional services with Hohbach-Lewin and Consolidated Engineering Laboratories.

1 Various parties have moved to join DPR’s motion to dismiss the Complaint, and those joinders are granted. 2 c. The parties shall complete mediation under the AAA Construction Industry Mediation Rules (Article 13.4) before further substantive arbitration hearings if they have not already done so to a conclusion. The arbitrator may, in her discretion, set a mediation deadline. d. Owners’ 13th cause of action for disgorgement under Business and Professions Code section 7031 shall proceed in arbitration with all other Owner-DPR claims. The Court reserves de novo review under Ahdout v. Hekmatjah (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 21.

3. All proceedings in this Court are STAYED pending the outcome of arbitration to mitigate the risk of inconsistent rulings (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1281.2, 1281.4), except for (a) ministerial matters relating to mechanics lien releases or bonds that do not require adjudication of the underlying merits, and (b) any further proceedings the Court orders. KO Architects, Inc.’s anticipated motion for summary judgment may be filed and heard after the stay is lifted.