Motion for Stay
(California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280.) At this stage, the Court will not address the merits of a potential Anti-SLAPP motion to strike the Proposed Cross-Complaint.
The Milnes shall give notice of this ruling.
6 Colligan vs. TENTATIVE RULING: So-Cal Boys Restaurant Motion for Stay Group Inc. Defendant Viking Security Services, Inc. moves to stay this action pending the interpleader and declaratory relief action filed by Defendant’s insurer. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
The Court notes that Defendant caused the motion to be served by email. However, the proof of service is defective because it does not state the sender’s email address. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013b(b)(1).) Further, on August 16, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Notice of Change of Firm Address, indicating that Plaintiff’s counsel’s email address is chris@gansen.law. (ROA 166.) Defendant did not serve Plaintiff’s counsel at that email address. Instead, moving counsel served Plaintiff’s counsel at chris@gansenlawgroup.com.
The motion is also denied on the merits.
“[A] court ordinarily has inherent power, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice.” (People v. Bell (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 323, 329; Landis v. North American Co. (1936) 299 U.S. 248, 254 (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”).)
The Court “may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.” (Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal. Ltd. (9th Cir. 1979) 593 F.2d 857, 863, citing Kerotest Manufacturing Co. v. C–O–Two Fire Equipment Co. (1952) 342 U.S. 180 (“the court may order a stay of the action pursuant to its power to control its docket and calendar and to provide for a just determination of the cases pending before it”).) Where such a stay is considered, the court need not find that the two cases present identical issues; instead, a finding that the cases present
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?”
substantially similar issues is sufficient. (See Landis, supra, 299 U.S. at 254.)
Criteria for the court to consider include: (1) potential prejudice to the nonmoving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact consolidated. (Rivers v. Walt Disney Co. (C.D. Cal. 1997) 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360.)
On August 28, 2025, Defendant’s insurer, Scottsdale Insurance Company, filed an interpleader and declaratory relief action in the Central District of California (“Interpleader Action”). (Rasmussen Dec., ¶ 5 and Ex. A.) The Interpleader Action concerns three pending lawsuits: DelGreco v. Viking Security Services, Inc., et al., (OCSC Case No. 30-2024-01400773-CU-PO-CJC; Stump v. Viking Security Services, Inc, et al., (OCSC Case No. 30-2023-01326370-CU-PO- CJC; and this action (the “Underlying Actions”). (Id. at ¶ 6.)
Scottsdale alleges it issued to Viking an insurance policy that contained an Assault and/or Battery Limited Liability Coverage endorsement. (Rasmussen Dec., ¶ 7.) The defendants in the Interpleader claim that the Policy provides up to $1 million in limits of liability for the Underlying Actions. (Ibid.) Scottsdale disputes this position due to the $100,000 Each Event, $200,000 Aggregate Limits of Liability in the A&B Coverage Form. (Ibid.) Trial in the Interpleader Action is set for December 8, 2026. (Id. at ¶ 9.)
Defendant contends it does not have assets sufficient to fund resolution of this matter or satisfy a judgment outside of its insurance. (Rasmussen Dec., ¶ 10.) A judgment against Viking in this matter would likely result in an uncollectable judgment and/or bankruptcy. (Ibid.)
The issues to be tried in this case are different from those to be tried in the Interpleader Action. Here, Plaintiffs assert claims for assault and battery, among others, alleging that Plaintiff David Colligan was attacked by a security guard who worked for Defendants. Defendants’ liability for these claims would not affect the existence or amount of insurance coverage for this incident. Defendants have not shown that there is a risk of inconsistent rulings. This case has been pending for three years and Defendants have not shown that a stay would promote judicial efficiency. Defendants have also not provided sufficient evidence that they would suffer inequity if the action is not stayed.
Defendants Jordan Frank and Heroes Restaurant, Inc. dba Roscoe’s Famous Deli, and specially appearing Defendants James Frank and Jeff Hayden filed a Joinder on June 24, 2026. The Joiner is untimely because it was filed less than 16 court days before the July 8, 2026, hearing. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1005.) The Joinder is denied.
Moving Defendants shall give notice of this ruling.
7 Kimes vs. Rich TENTATIVE RULING:
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff Conrad Phillip Kimes’ motion for leave to file Opposition and to reconsider and vacate orders granting Defendants’ motion in limine nos. 1, 2 and 4 is DENIED as moot.
Relevant Case History
This matter was initially scheduled for trial on 2/9/26.
On 02/04/26, Plaintiff filed a notice of Substitution of Attorney. (ROA no. 334.) Plaintiff is now representing himself. (Id.)
On 2/5/26, Defendants Rayco Construction Enterprises, Inc., T.S.G. Independent Property Management, Inc., Beacon Hill Terrace Condominium Homeowners Association, Rich Carrol and Design Build Associates, LLC filed their motions in limine, including the motions in limine at issue here: nos. 1, 2, and 4. (See ROA nos. 356, 353, 352, 354, and 355).
On 2/6/26, the court continued the pretrial conference, and the trial, to 6/18/26. The court noted in its order that “Court and counsel hold discussions regarding plaintiff representation, witness list, estimated time of trial and bifurcation.” (ROA 361). The Order does not set forth any decision on the motions in limine.
On 2/17/26, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file an opposition to motions in limine nos. 1, 2, and 4 and to reconsider and vacate orders granting Defendants’ motions in limine.
On 6/15/26, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ motions in limine, nos. 1 through 7. (ROA 419).
On 6/18/26, Plaintiff made a verbal request for a continuance, and the court granted the request with no objection from Defendant. The trial was continued to 11/2/26. The pretrial conference was continued to