LEE vs TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.

25CV160442: LEE vs TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al. 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by Commercial Maintenance & Renovation, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 441301500492 in Department 20

Tentative Ruling - 08/17/2026 Thomas Weathers

The Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by Commercial Maintenance & Renovation, Inc. on 07/20/2026 is Denied.

Defendant Commercial Maintenance & Renovation, Inc.’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings is DENIED.

Defendant Tradesmen International LLC’s Joinder to the Motion for Stay of Proceedings is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Dominiq Lee initiated this action on December 17, 2025 against Defendants Tradesman International, LLC (“Tradesmen”), Commercial Maintenance & Renovation, Inc. (“CMR”), and Robert Rhodes (“Rhodes”). The Complaint alleges, inter alia, various violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), including racial discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation.

On July 9, 2026, the Court denied CMR and Tradesmen’s motions to compel arbitration. The Court found that Plaintiff’s claims could not be arbitrated in light of the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”). (7/9/26 Order at pp. 5-6.)

On or about July 17, 2026, CMR filed a notice of appeal regarding the Court’s Order denying its motion to compel arbitration. Tradesmen also filed a notice of appeal regarding the same Order on July 20, 2026.

CMR now moves to stay this action pending resolution of Tradesmen’s appeal. Tradesmen joins in the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Except as provided in Sections 917.1 to 917.10, inclusive, and in Section 116.810, the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.” (C.C.P. § 916(a).)

A court has inherent authority to stay litigation in the interest of judicial economy, to avoid inconsistent outcomes, and in the interests of justice. (St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. v. 25CV160442: LEE vs TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al. 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by Commercial Maintenance & Renovation, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 441301500492 in Department 20 AmerisourceBergen Corp. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1, 13-14 [power to stay is inherent in every court to control disposition of cases when such a stay accommodates the ends of justice]; O.T.O., LLC v.

Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 141 [power to stay proceedings is incidental to inherent power to control disposition of cases on the court’s docket with the economy of time and effort for itself, counsel, and litigants]; Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 18 Cal.4th 739, 758 [“The case management tools available to trial courts [includes] the inherent authority to stay an action when appropriate”]; Bailey v. Fosca Oil Co., (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 813, 817 [“the power of a court to stay proceedings ... was inherent at common law and is now vested in the superior courts of this state”].)

DISCUSSION

Code of Civil Procedure section 1294(a) provides the following: “Notwithstanding Section 916, the perfecting of [an appeal of an order granting or denying a motion to compel arbitration], shall not automatically stay any proceedings in the trial court during the pendency of the appeal.” CMR contends that the FAA preempts section 1294(a). (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 405 [rule of enforceability established by FAA preempts any contrary state law and is binding on state courts as well as federal].)

“The FAA contains no express pre-emptive provision, nor does it reflect a congressional intent to occupy the entire field of occupation.” (Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376, 385.) State law may be pre-empted to the extent it actually conflicts with federal law, “that is, to the extent that it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” (Id., internal citations omitted.) There is no federal policy favoring arbitration under a certain set of procedural rules. (Id. at p. 392.)

CMR argues that, pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski (2023) 599 U.S. 736, the FAA includes the right to take an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to compel arbitration, and a federal district court must stay proceedings while an interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitration is pending. (Id. at pp. 741-743) However, the Supreme Court states that the automatic stay of district court proceedings relating to an aspect of the case involved on appeal is a “background principle” rather than an express provision enacted by Congress as part of the FAA. (Id. pp. 743-744.)

Section 1294(a) does not appear to be preempted by the FAA because it does not itself stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress as set forth in the FAA. Section 1294(a), as recently amended in 2024, only does not require an automatic stay in trial court proceedings during the pendency of an appeal on an order regarding arbitration. Generally, absent a statutory mandate, the filing of an appeal does not automatically stay trial court proceedings, and whether a stay should issue is within a court’s discretion. (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 193-194.) As such, it does not appear that Defendant has a right to stay these proceedings pending an appeal.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV160442: LEE vs TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al. 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by Commercial Maintenance & Renovation, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 441301500492 in Department 20 The Court has both statutory authority under C.C.P. § 128 and inherent authority to issue a stay to manage its proceedings to provide for the orderly conduct of matters before it, and to control its processes so as to make them conform to law and justice.

Here, CMR has not established that the interests of justice and judicial efficiency would be promoted by a stay. Courts have an inherent obligation to decide cases properly before them. (Topa Ins. Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins Companies (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1344-1345.) Any elapsed time other than reasonably required for pleadings and discovery is unacceptable and should be eliminated, and courts “must control the pace of litigation, reduce delay, and maintain a current docket so as to enable the just, expeditious, and efficient resolution of cases. (Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 306-307, internal citations omitted.) In light of the foregoing, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to issue a stay pending Defendants’ appeal.

Lastly, for the first time on Reply, CMR contends that the arbitration agreement incorporates the FAA, including its substantive and procedural rules, and excludes the California Arbitration Act rendering section 1294(a) inapplicable. Points raised for the first time on reply may be deemed forfeited unless good reason is shown for the failure to present them before. (In re Marriage of Khera & Sameer (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1467, 1477-1478; Coziahr v. Otay Water Dist. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 785, 799, citing Raceway Ford Cases (2016) 2 Cal.5th 161, 178.) CMR provides no explanation for its failure to raise this argument with its moving papers. Presenting the argument for the first time on reply deprived Plaintiff of the opportunity to address and oppose the argument. As such, the Court does not consider CMR’s untimely argument.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, the motion for stay of proceedings is DENIED.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select "Search" 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select "Click to Contest this Ruling"

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV160442: LEE vs TRADESMEN INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al. 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by Commercial Maintenance & Renovation, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 441301500492 in Department 20 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select "Proceed" BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.