Estate of Karl J Porter

Plaintiff opposes the Motion, contending “R&S asks the Court to halt this action without identifying a parallel adjudicative proceeding, a reasonably certain completion date, or any basis to conclude that the Owner's process will dispose of the claims before this Court. Judicial economy is not served by indefinitely staying ripe contractual and statutory claims based on speculation that an external process may someday be resolved.” (Opp., 2:8-12.) “California law does not permit a prime contractor to postpone a subcontractor’s right to payment indefinitely while the prime contractor pursues recovery from the owner.” (Opposition, 1:4-9.) Plaintiff argues that this exact request was made, and denied, in Crosno Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 940. (Id., 1:10-25.)

Section 128 contains a list of powers that every court inherently maintains. R&S fails to cite to the subdivision upon which its motion is brought. That said, Plaintiff does not challenge the existence of the Court’s authority to stay proceedings before it. Thus, the Court overlooks this procedural deficiency in the Motion.

The Court does not find Crosno particularly analogous, for the reasons explained by R&S in Reply. However, the Court elects not to exercise its discretion to grant a stay in this case. As an initial matter, R&S’s Motion argues—with very little evidentiary support—that Plaintiff’s claims against R&S in this action are “pass through claims” that “arise out of the actions or omissions of the Owner” and therefore subject to a separate manner of resolution between R&S and the owner. (Mem., 3:7-9, 4:19-22, 11-14, Declaration of Paul Kangas (“Kangas Decl.”), ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff disputes that assumption in Opposition, arguing “[t]he vast majority of Plaintiff's claims are direct claims against R&S for breach of contract and breach of implied warranty that do not depend on the Owner’s adjudication of any disputes.” (See Opp., 1:26-2:1; 5:18-19.) In Reply, R&S does not contest Plaintiff’s assertion that the “vast majority” of its claims are direct claims that do not require submission to the Owner, nor does it attempt to distinguish the direct claims from the Owner-related claims.

Finally, R&S provides no estimate for when the claims will be resolved by the owner.

For all the foregoing reasons, R&S has failed to show that the interests of efficiency would be promoted by a stay. Thus, the Motion is DENIED.

PROBATE CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.

Estate of Karl J Porter 24PR000279

FINAL DISTRIBUTION HEARING

APPEARANCE REQUIRED to update the Court on the status of the Creditor’s Claim from the State of California Franchise Tax Board filed May 8, 2026 after the Petition for Final Distribution was filed on February 13, 2026.

18