Othon, et al. v. Chung Lai, et al.

Further, the requisite forms must be served on the client and all other parties who have appeared in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) A motion to withdraw will not be granted where withdrawal would prejudice the client. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant ¿(1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

DISCUSSION Counsel has filed the notice of motion to be relieved as counsel on form MC-051 as to both Defendants (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(a)), a declaration on form MC-052 as to both Defendants (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(c)), and proposed order on form MC-053 as to both Defendants. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).) Counsel's declaration and the proposed order identify the next hearing as the Post Mediation Status Conference. (Price Decl., P. 4; Proposed Order, P. 7.) Counsel declares that there has been an irreparable breakdown in the attorney client relationship in this matter. (Price Decl., P. 2.)

The¿Court finds that Counsel has set forth sufficient grounds to be relieved as counsel for Defendants. Also, the motion complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. Given that trial is not set in this action, the Court finds that withdrawal at this stage of litigation will not prejudice Defendants. Defendants have not filed an opposition contending otherwise. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Attorneys Stefan Stuparu, Esq. and Joseph T. Hitrec, Esq.'s motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED.

The Court schedules an Order to Show Cause Hearing re: Case Status for September 10, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department B of the Burbank Courthouse. Defendants Juan Avalos and Avalos General Construction Services, LLC. are ordered to appear in court, unless they are represented by authorized counsel at the hearing. MOVING PARTY is to give notice and provide a proposed order consistent with this ruling within 5 days from this date.

MOTION to Stay Proceedings Hearing Date: 8/14/26 CASE NO.: 26NNCV01720 CASE NAME: Othon, et al. v. Chung Lai, et al. Moving Party: Defendants Yueh Chung Lai and Li-ru Chang Lai Responding Party: Plaintiffs Patricia Othon, Ricardo Othon, Richard Othon, Angel Amaral, and Robert Amaral Notice: Sufficient Ruling: DENY

NOTICE The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter/motion. The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested. Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and ANY PARTY SEEKING ARGUMENT SHOULD NOTIFY ALL OTHER PARTIES AND THE COURT BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE COURT DAY BEFORE THE HEARING of the party's intention to argue as to this matter/motion. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.

Notice may be given either by email at [email protected] or by telephone at (818) 260-8422. Parties must appear on all other matters scheduled for this case. BACKGROUND This is a real property dispute. Prior to the instant action, plaintiffs Patricia Othon, Ricardo Othon, Richard Othon, Angel Amaral, and Robert Amaral (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit on August 6, 2025, in the Glendale Courthouse (Lawsuit #1) against defendants Yueh Chung Lai and Li-ru Chang Lai (Defendants). (Ip Decl., P. 3.) On February 2, 2026, the Court in Lawsuit #1 awarded Defendants attorney's fees in the amount of $9,517.70. (Ip Decl., P. 6.)

That lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiffs on March 12, 2026. On March 10, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the operative Complaint in this action against Defendants based on the same operative set of facts (Lawsuit #2). On June 22, 2026, Defendants filed the instant motion to stay proceedings pending satisfaction of the February 2 court-ordered fee award. On August 3, 2026, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On August 7, 2026, Defendants filed a reply. LEGAL STANDARD "[A] court ordinarily has inherent power, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice." (OTO, L.L.C. v.

Kho ¿(2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 141 [citing¿ People v. Bell ¿(1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 323, 329.]) "[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." (OTO, L.L.C., supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 141 [quoting Landis v. North American Co. ¿(1936) 299 U.S. 248, 254].) DISCUSSION Defendants seek an order staying the instant action until Plaintiffs pay attorney's fees pursuant to a February 2, 2026, Court Order from Lawsuit #1 prior to its voluntary dismissal. (Mot., p. 2.)

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs should not be permitted to seek affirmative relief in this action, based on the same operative facts from Lawsuit #1, while refusing to comply with a court order from that action. (Mot., p. 11.) Further, Defendants argue that the strategic voluntary dismissal did not extinguish Plaintiffs' fee obligation. (Mot., p. 10.) Defendants argue that they will suffer oppression or hardship if the action is not stayed because they are being forced to incur additional attorney's fees in Lawsuit #2 to defend nearly identical claims while Plaintiffs have not paid fees due in

Lawsuit #1. (Mot., p. 12.) Plaintiffs concede that they voluntarily dismissed Lawsuit #1 for tactile reasons in order to add a cause of action and avoid further delays and legal challenges from Defendants. (Opp., p. 3.) Plaintiffs argue that Defendants do not cite any recent authority which authorizes a trial court to stay one lawsuit because the same Plaintiffs has not paid a prior judgement obtained by the same defendant in another action. (Ibid.) Further, Plaintiffs argue that they have not tried to prevent collection of the monetary judgment in Lawsuit #1 and Defendants have not shown any oppression or hardship due to their inability to collect this judgment. (Opp., pp. 4-5.)

In reply, Defendants argue that under Weile v. Sturtevant the Court has the ability to stay a case where a party refuses to satisfy a monetary obligation from related prior litigation. (Reply, p. 3.) Defendants reiterate that they will face oppression and hardship because Plaintiff's non-payment is not merely non-payment but one act in a series of oppressive acts by Plaintiff including evading safe-harbor notice, sanctions, and recording lis pendens without leave of court. (Reply, pp. 4-5.) Defendants' own cited case law states that the power to stay should not be exercised in every case where costs have not been paid, but only where the facts show oppression and hardship. (Erlich v.

Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1965) 63 Cal.2d 551, 557.) Here, Defendants have not demonstrated how Plaintiffs' delay in paying attorney's fees from Lawsuit #1 impacts this action requiring a stay. While Defendants have alleged misconduct on the part of Plaintiffs, Defendants have not shown how the delay in payment of fees from Lawsuit #1 has caused oppression and hardship requiring a stay of the action. Accordingly, the motion to stay proceedings is DENIED. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendants' Motion to Stay Action is DENIED.

MOVING PARTY shall provide notice. | Home -->)" -->