NEIL A. GOTEINER VS. INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING LEAGUE, LTD., A SWISS ET AL

Petitioner Neil Goteiner's Motions To 1) Require Plaintiffs To Post Appellate Bond Or Undertaking Pursuant To Code Of Civil Procedure Sections 917.1 And 1030; And 2) For Reimbursement Of Attorneys Fees And Costs Pursuant To Business And Professions Code Section 6203(C) are DENIED. Parties generally may not stack separate motions into a single filing; instead, each distinct motion should typically be presented in a separate, properly captioned document. (See Weil & Brown et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024) 9:24.3.) ["Each motion or demurrer should normally be set forth in a separate document."].) Distinct motions preserve clarity for both opposing parties and the court. Distinct motions, as well, allow the court to manage its resources (e.g., staggering or deferring motions), which is a compelling interest in oversubscribed courts such as this one. Yes, sometimes a stacked motion is appropriate because the issues are closely related, and clarity is preserved. But counsel and parties must use reasonable judgment, recognizing stacked motions are the exception, not the rule. Here, Petitioner's two discrete motions-a motion for a bond and motion for attorney's fees-are not closely related such that they are appropriately presented in a stacked motion. The stacked motion, thus, is not appropriately before the court. This once the court will address the first motion but deny without prejudice the second motion. In the future, all improperly stacked motions will be ordered off calendar. Further, the court notes it has no intention of deciding seriatim attorney's fees motions in this case. Petitioner's motion for an appellate bond is denied. Respondents and FBM have satisfied the February 2026 order and Respondents do not now owe Petitioner anything by way of any order or judgment in this action. Petitioner did not establish Respondents do not pay their bills or are judgment proof in the United States. Even if it has authority to order a bond on these facts, the court declines to exercise its discretion to order Respondents to post a bond only to secure costs and fees Petitioner may recover as a result of and after the appeal. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1(b).) Section 1030(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure is inapt because Respondents are not "plaintiffs." (See Yao v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 327, 331-333.) Here, Petitioner brought the action against Respondents. Section 1030 does not provide for a bond in favor of Petitioner and against Respondents under these circumstances. Further section 1030 is clearly a mechanism for a trial court to regulate proceedings before it and preserve the parties' rights and interests while the case is pending before it. To the extent it requires the court to find it "reasonably possible" for the defendant to obtain judgment, the court is to assess what it, not another higher court, will likely do in the case. And enforcement by an order dismissing the action or staying proceedings is unique to the proceedings before the trial court itself; it goes without saying a trial court is without the power to dismiss an appeal or stay proceedings in a reviewing court. All that said, even if section 1030 relief were available in this case, the time for it has long past now that the case is with a higher court for review.