COPIER HEADQUARTERS, INC. dba GOODSUITE v. RICHARD "PETE" ROBBINS, et al.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 309) August 18, 2026 DEPARTMENT 309 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 309

COPIER HEADQUARTERS, INC. dba GOODSUITE vs. RICHARD "PETE" ROBBINS, et al. | Case No.: 26STCV07286 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 | Defendants' motion to stay proceedings and compel mediation is MOOT.

On 2/3/2026, Plaintiff Copier Headquarters, Inc dba Goodsuite (Plaintiff) filed suit against Richard "Pete" Robbins and MSP Blue Team, LLC (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) fraud; (4) interference with economic advantage; (5) violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200; and (6) temporary restraining or preliminary injunction.

On 4/20/2026, Defendants moved to stay proceedings and compel mediation.

Discussion

Defendants seek to stay proceedings and compel mediation, pursuant to the terms of Asset Purchase Agreement which requires that any and all disputes arising under the Agreement be mediated before resorting to litigation.

Indeed, Section 9.3.1(a) of the Asset Purchase Agreement provides: Dispute Resolution. The parties agree that any and all disputes arising between them under the terms of this agreement shall first be mediated by mutually acceptable mediator. If the parties are unable to agree upon mediator, the parties may then contact any third-party reputable mediation companies, who may appoint a mediator to mediate the matter. The cost of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants do not identify any law pursuant to which the court may summarily compel the parties to attend mediation, and that mediation is generally presumed to be voluntary.

Indeed, the authority that Defendants invoke for the proposition that mediation agreements are subject to judicial orders of specific performance by noticed motion do not stand for the position advanced. One addressed ADR clauses in construction contracts subject to special statutory enforcement procedures not applicable here. (See The McCaffrey Group, Inc. v. Superior Court (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1345 [addressing motions to compel mediation and stay proceedings per pre-litigation dispute agreements authorized by Right of Repair Act and Civil Code Sec. 930]), while another endorsed the enforceability of a mediation requirement--not through a motion seeking specific performance, but as a condition precedent to an award of attorney fees, justifying the denial of a motion for same. (See Frei v. Davey (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1512.)

While Defendants also cite federal cases for the proposition that failure to comply with a contract making mediation a condition precedent to suit "warrants dismissal," federal authority is not applicable here and Defendants do not bring a motion for such relief.

More importantly, the parties have already agreed to participate in mediation, which is reflected in the Notice of the Parties' Agreement to Mediate, filed on 7/14/2026. As such, even assuming the Court had the power to compel mediation, the request would be moot.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants' motion to stay proceedings and compel mediation is moot. It is so ordered.

Dated: August, 2026 Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If a party submits on the tentative, the party's email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.

Case Number: BC424856 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: 309 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 309