Motion for Stay of Proceedings
25CV120953: TETSUBAYASHI vs INDEED, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by INDEED, INC., a Delaware corporation (Defendant) CRS# 008591833968 in Department 17
Tentative Ruling - 05/22/2026 Chad A. Stegeman
The Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by INDEED, INC., a Delaware corporation on 03/16/2026 is Denied.
The Motion of Defendant Indeed, Inc. (Defendant) to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal is DENIED. At the time of this Tentative Ruling, no Reply has been filed. LEGAL STANDARD [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. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance. (Landis v. North American Co. (1936) 299 U.S. 248, 254-255.) In general, it is an abuse of discretion to grant a stay of indefinite duration in absence of a pressing need. (Id. at p. 255.)
DISCUSSION First, the Court applies California law for statutory construction of CCP 1294(a), which concerns the procedural issue of a stay. The Court does not find that the FAA preempts SB 365, as Defendant argues. The Court therefore considers the Motion to concern the interpretation and application of CCP 1294(a), although Defendant seeks the stay under the mandatory stay provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act as recently established in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski (2023) 599 U.S. 736, as well as under this Courts inherent authority under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4. (Notice, p. 2:6-10.) Sections 3 and 4 of the FAA, governing stays of litigation and petitions to enforce arbitration agreements, do not apply in state court. (Cable Connection, Inc. v.
DIRECTV, Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1334, 1351.) The FAA does not apply to the issue before the Court. Next, Defendant argues that a stay is mandatory pending appeal of the Courts denial of its Motion to Compel Arbitration, but in the alternative, a discretionary stay is appropriate. Automatic Stay CCP 1294(a) states An aggrieved party may appeal from An order dismissing or denying a petition to compel arbitration. CCP 1294(a) was amended effective January 1, 2024 to state Notwithstanding Section 916, the perfecting of such an appeal shall not automatically stay any proceedings in the trial court during the pendency of the appeal.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
CCP 916 states: 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. The 25CV120953: TETSUBAYASHI vs INDEED, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by INDEED, INC., a Delaware corporation (Defendant) CRS# 008591833968 in Department 17 purpose of the automatic stay is to protect the appellate court's jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided. The [automatic stay] prevents the trial court from rendering an appeal futile by altering the appealed judgment or order by conducting other proceedings that may affect it. (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189.)
The plain language of CCP 1294(a) states that the CCP 916 automatic stay does not apply during an appeal from an order denying arbitration. Thus, the Court rejects Defendants claim that the Court is required to stay pre-trial and trial proceedings under Coinbase, which considers a motion to compel arbitration under the FAA. (MPA, p. 5:5-6; Coinbase, supra, 599 U.S. at p. 738.)
Discretionary Stay The Court is also not persuaded by the validity of Defendants argument that it should not consider Plaintiffs arguments concerning delay because Plaintiff herself engaged in dilatory tactics[.] (MPA, p. 9, fn. 2.) Permitting the case to proceed will undoubtedly avoid undue delay. A stay of the case would delay discovery and trial by the length of time the case is on appeal, especially as the Notice of Appeal was filed recently on February 23, 2026. (ROA.) This raises the same concerns that support statutes of limitation that claims [should not be] allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared. (Nguyen v.
Western Digital Corp. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1538.) Permitting the case to proceed might, as Defendant argues, consume extra judicial resources and would lead to Defendant not getting the benefits of its arbitration agreement and the efficiencies that accompany arbitration. On the other hand, if the Court of Appeal affirms the trial court, then there is no impact on judicial economy. Plaintiff would suffer prejudice if the proceedings are stayed because the case, while initiated just over a year ago and therefore still in the earlier stages of litigation, has been set for trial mid- December this year, and although neither party mentions the status, the parties were required to engage in mediation and have a compliance hearing scheduled on August 28, 2026.
Plaintiff has further attempted to engage in discovery as early as June 10, 2025. (Gil Decl. ¶ 2.) In light of all these factors, Defendant has not met its burden of demonstrating that a stay is appropriate on the facts of this case. Accordingly, Defendants Motion for a Stay 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?
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
25CV120953: TETSUBAYASHI vs INDEED, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings filed by INDEED, INC., a Delaware corporation (Defendant) CRS# 008591833968 in Department 17
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 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.