CAT'S TAIL, LLC, VS. KATHERINE M. PAPAGROGRE ET AL

Matter on Calendar for Friday, August 8, 2025, Line 5 (Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling), CROSS-COMPLAINANTS KATHERINE PAPAGEORGE AS TRUSTEE OF THE 1996 PAPGEROGE FAMILY TRUST, ARES PAPAGEORGE'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO THE DISCOVERY RESPONSES PROPOUNDED BY CATS TAIL, LLC.

Defendants and cross-complainants Katherine and Ares Papageorge seek a protective order concerning plaintiff and cross-defendant Cat's Tail LLC's requests for production of documents, set one, and special interrogatories, set one. The motion is granted as stated herein.

The court concludes that the Papageorges' discovery responses were timely served. Code of Civil Procedure 1010.6(b)(3) states, "Before first serving a represented person electronically, the person effecting service shall confirm the appropriate electronic service address for the counsel being served." The Papageorges' counsel instructed that they should be served through the email addresses of two administrative staff. (Goodell Dec., para. 3 & Ex. 1.) Cat's Tail's counsel did not include the administrative staff on the email.

The court finds their arguments that a party can only specify one address for service, or that actual notice existed, unpersuasive. By requiring confirmation of the proper email address, the Code adopts the commonsense approach that electronic service should be directed to the email address or addresses that will result in timely receipt and processing of a document. Insisting that it is sufficient to serve counsel only increases the chance of missed service as occurred in this case, while adding the administrative email address that counsel requests is easy.

By order on October 24, 2024, this court compelled the arbitration of the Papageorges' cross-complaint against Fallbrook Mortgage Fund LLC and "stay[ed] prosecution of the cross-complaint." (Order 1:22.) The order specifically noted that "[p]rosecution of the cross-complaint is stayed as to all cross-defendants . . . ." (Order 1:24-25.) The effect of this order is to stay the cross-complaint in its entirety.

Under CCP 1281.2(d), the court has four discrete options when it is considering whether to compel arbitration between parties where there are third-party claims also pending: "the court (1) may refuse to enforce the arbitration agreement and may order intervention or joinder of all parties in a single action or special proceeding; (2) may order intervention or joinder as to all or only certain issues; (3) may order arbitration among the parties who have agreed to arbitration and stay the pending court action or special proceeding pending the outcome of the arbitration proceeding; or (4) may stay arbitration pending the outcome of the court action or special proceeding."