Yanez v. Pabco Building Products, LLC, et al.

25CV152740: YANEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES AND THE CALIFORNIA LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AG... vs PABCO BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, et al. 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by PABCO BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC, a limited liability corporation (Defendant) + CRS# 384381669366 in Department 24

Tentative Ruling - 07/16/2026 Rebekah Evenson

The Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by RYAN LEADINGHAM, an individual, PABCO BUILDING PRODUCTS, LLC, a limited liability corporation, CAROLYN BARRAZA, an individual, on 07/07/2026 is Denied.

Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Filing of Petition for Writ of Mandate is DENIED.

Defendants filed a motion to change venue of this case to Sacramento Count Superior Court, which was denied on June 25, 2026.

Defendants indicate that they plan to file a writ petition seeking reversal of that order, and they seek to stay all discovery and related pretrial proceedings pending resolution of the writ petition. Defendants argue that if this case is not stayed, they will risk “substantial unnecessary expense, duplication of effort, and prejudice” if they are required to engage in discovery prior to resolution of the writ petition.

The Court first observes that there is no indication that Defendants have yet filed a writ petition challenging the Court’s order that was made over three weeks ago. But in any event, Defendants do not demonstrate that they will suffer any prejudice by having to respond to discovery before any writ petition they may eventually decide to file is decided. Whether or not this case is heard in Alameda County or Sacramento County, Defendants will still be required to respond to discovery, and the court in the county in which the case is pending will hear any discovery disputes. Defendants make no showing that discovery will be more expensive if this case is pending in one county or the other, or that there is any potential for “duplication of effort”.

Finally, the Court observes that Defendants’ Notice of Motion indicates that the motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.2 and 1281.4. The Court does not understand the relevance of those code sections (both of which address motions to compel arbitration) to this motion.

This order does not preclude Defendants from seeking an order from the Court of Appeal staying this case, assuming that Defendants decide to file a writ petition challenging this Court’s June 25, 2026 order.