1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOUISE GUZMAN, Case No.: 25-CV-00740-GPC-BLM
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 13 v. COURTYARDS OWNER, LLC’S MOTION TO STAY 14 Courtyards Owner, LLC; Carinal Group
Management Midwest, Inc.; Asset Living 15 [ECF No. 54] Corporation; Tschetter Sulzer Muccio, 16 P.C.; Victor Lewis Sulzer, Esq.; John Doe; and Central Portfolio Control, Inc., 17 Defendants. 18
19 This case arises from the filing and prosecution of a Colorado unlawful detainer 20 action against Plaintiff Louise Guzman, an active-duty United States Marine, after she had 21 already vacated the premises pursuant to military orders. See ECF No. 29. This Court 22 previously found that it lacked jurisdiction over two law firm Defendants and transferred 23 the claims against those Defendants to the District of Colorado. ECF No. 49. Defendant 24 Courtyards Owner, LLC now moves to stay the action pending the resolution of the related 25 Colorado case. ECF No. 54. For the reasons outlined below, the Court DENIES the motion 26 to stay. Accordingly, the Court also VACATES the hearing scheduled for June 18, 2026. 27 1 BACKGROUND 2 I. Factual Background 3 The facts of this case have been detailed by the Court in previous orders. See ECF 4 No. 49. Thus, the Court will recount only those facts relevant to the motion now before it. 5 In June 2023, Plaintiff entered into a residential lease agreement with Defendant 6 Courtyards Owner, LLC (“Courtyards”) for an apartment in Aurora, Colorado, while 7 serving as a reservist in the United States Marine Corps. See ECF No. 29, ¶¶ 32–39. The 8 property is owned by Courtyards. Id. ¶ 34. During the lease application process, Plaintiff 9 disclosed her military status and provided documentation confirming that status. Id. ¶ 36. 10 In November 2023, Plaintiff received Permanent Change of Station orders requiring 11 her to relocate to San Diego, California. Id. ¶ 40. Plaintiff alleges that she notified her 12 apartment complex of her military orders, completed her move-out process, turned in her 13 keys, and vacated the apartment on or about January 26, 2024. Id. ¶¶ 41–45. 14 Despite Plaintiff’s prior vacancy, Courtyards, through counsel, filed a Colorado 15 forcible entry and detainer action against Plaintiff on July 9, 2024. Id. ¶ 46. An affidavit 16 filed as part of the lawsuit asserted that Plaintiff was not in military service. Id. ¶ 47. 17 Plaintiff alleges that Courtyards, as the owner and principal of the residential 18 property at issue, negligently entrusted property management and eviction enforcement to 19 its agent without meaningful oversight. Id. ¶ 57. Plaintiff also alleges additional theories 20 of liability against Courtyards in relation to Courtyards’ purported knowledge that Plaintiff 21 was in military service and role as the plaintiff in the Colorado unlawful detainer lawsuit. 22 See generally ECF No. 29. 23 Plaintiff further argues that Courtyards is vicariously liable for conduct of each of 24 the other Defendants in this case—including those transferred to the District of Colorado— 25 in their capacity as Courtyards’ agents. Id. ¶ 58. 26 II. Procedural Background 27 1 Plaintiff’s suit previously included Defendants Tschetter Sulzer Muccio, P.C., and 2 Lewis Sulzer, Esq (“Law Firm Defendants”). ECF No. 29, ¶¶ 22–23. In January 2026, the 3 Law Firm Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper 4 venue. ECF No. 43. The Law Firm Defendants further argued that, if the Court did not 5 dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court should transfer the claims against them 6 to the District of Colorado where they are properly subject to personal jurisdiction. ECF 7 No. 43-1, at 18. 8 The Court found that the Law Firm Defendants’ conduct occurred entirely in 9 Colorado and that they had not purposefully directed any activity towards California. ECF 10 No. 49-1, at 12. Thus, the Court concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the Law 11 Firm Defendants and transferred the claims against them to the District of Colorado. Id. at 12 12-13. 13 Defendant Courtyards now moves to stay the action pending the resolution of the 14 related Colorado action. ECF No. 54-1, at 2. 15 LEGAL STANDARD 16 “The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its 17 power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis 18 v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “A stay is not a matter of right[.]” Virginian R. 19 Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672 (1926). Rather, it is “an exercise of judicial 20 discretion,” and “[t]he propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the 21 particular case.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (quoting Virginia R. Co., 272 22 U.S. at 672). The party requesting a stay bears the burden of demonstrating that a stay is 23 appropriate. Id. at 434; DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 14-cv-05330-HSG, 2015 24 WL 1967878, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2015). 25 In determining whether to grant a motion to stay, “the competing interests which 26 will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.” Lockyer v. 27 1 Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). These interests include: (1) “the 2 possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or 3 inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3) “the orderly 4 course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and 5 questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. Courts are not limited 6 to these three factors and can consider the totality of the circumstances. Consumer Fin. 7 Prot. Bureau v. Daniel A. Rosen, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-07492-VAP-JDEX, 2023 WL 8 11876966, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2023). 9 DISCUSSION 10 Defendant Courtyards asks the Court to stay this action pending the resolution of the 11 related action in the District of Colorado (“Colorado action”). ECF No. 54-1, at 2. 12 Courtyards argues that (1) the orderly course of justice favors a stay; (2) Plaintiff will not 13 be prejudiced by a stay; and (3) Courtyards will suffer hardship if compelled to proceed. 14 See generally ECF No. 54-1. More specifically, Courtyards argues that a stay will allow 15 threshold questions to be resolved, avoid duplicative discovery and potentially inconsistent 16 findings, and aid in judicial economy. Id. 17 Plaintiff counters that the Colorado action will not resolve any issues in this case and 18 concerns over duplicative discovery are minimal. ECF No. 57, at 5-7. Plaintiff further 19 argues that a stay would result in an unnecessary and prejudicial delay and give rise to 20 concerns regarding evidentiary preservation. Id. at 8-9. Lastly, Plaintiff emphasizes that 21 her theories of liability against Courtyards are not solely based on the conduct of its 22 agents—namely, the Law Firm Defendants—and Courtyards’ reliance thereon, but also on 23 Courtyards’ own actions in allegedly knowing about Plaintiff’s military status and failing 24 to disclose such information to the Law Firm Defendants. Id. at 10. 25 Courtyards’ arguments ignore that all challenged conduct in this case was conducted 26 either by Courtyards or on Courtyards’ own behalf. In fact, Courtyards was initially the 27 1 only Defendant in Plaintiff’s case. See ECF No. 1.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOUISE GUZMAN, Case No.: 25-CV-00740-GPC-BLM
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 13 v. COURTYARDS OWNER, LLC’S MOTION TO STAY 14 Courtyards Owner, LLC; Carinal Group
Management Midwest, Inc.; Asset Living 15 [ECF No. 54] Corporation; Tschetter Sulzer Muccio, 16 P.C.; Victor Lewis Sulzer, Esq.; John Doe; and Central Portfolio Control, Inc., 17 Defendants. 18
19 This case arises from the filing and prosecution of a Colorado unlawful detainer 20 action against Plaintiff Louise Guzman, an active-duty United States Marine, after she had 21 already vacated the premises pursuant to military orders. See ECF No. 29. This Court 22 previously found that it lacked jurisdiction over two law firm Defendants and transferred 23 the claims against those Defendants to the District of Colorado. ECF No. 49. Defendant 24 Courtyards Owner, LLC now moves to stay the action pending the resolution of the related 25 Colorado case. ECF No. 54. For the reasons outlined below, the Court DENIES the motion 26 to stay. Accordingly, the Court also VACATES the hearing scheduled for June 18, 2026. 27 1 BACKGROUND 2 I. Factual Background 3 The facts of this case have been detailed by the Court in previous orders. See ECF 4 No. 49. Thus, the Court will recount only those facts relevant to the motion now before it. 5 In June 2023, Plaintiff entered into a residential lease agreement with Defendant 6 Courtyards Owner, LLC (“Courtyards”) for an apartment in Aurora, Colorado, while 7 serving as a reservist in the United States Marine Corps. See ECF No. 29, ¶¶ 32–39. The 8 property is owned by Courtyards. Id. ¶ 34. During the lease application process, Plaintiff 9 disclosed her military status and provided documentation confirming that status. Id. ¶ 36. 10 In November 2023, Plaintiff received Permanent Change of Station orders requiring 11 her to relocate to San Diego, California. Id. ¶ 40. Plaintiff alleges that she notified her 12 apartment complex of her military orders, completed her move-out process, turned in her 13 keys, and vacated the apartment on or about January 26, 2024. Id. ¶¶ 41–45. 14 Despite Plaintiff’s prior vacancy, Courtyards, through counsel, filed a Colorado 15 forcible entry and detainer action against Plaintiff on July 9, 2024. Id. ¶ 46. An affidavit 16 filed as part of the lawsuit asserted that Plaintiff was not in military service. Id. ¶ 47. 17 Plaintiff alleges that Courtyards, as the owner and principal of the residential 18 property at issue, negligently entrusted property management and eviction enforcement to 19 its agent without meaningful oversight. Id. ¶ 57. Plaintiff also alleges additional theories 20 of liability against Courtyards in relation to Courtyards’ purported knowledge that Plaintiff 21 was in military service and role as the plaintiff in the Colorado unlawful detainer lawsuit. 22 See generally ECF No. 29. 23 Plaintiff further argues that Courtyards is vicariously liable for conduct of each of 24 the other Defendants in this case—including those transferred to the District of Colorado— 25 in their capacity as Courtyards’ agents. Id. ¶ 58. 26 II. Procedural Background 27 1 Plaintiff’s suit previously included Defendants Tschetter Sulzer Muccio, P.C., and 2 Lewis Sulzer, Esq (“Law Firm Defendants”). ECF No. 29, ¶¶ 22–23. In January 2026, the 3 Law Firm Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper 4 venue. ECF No. 43. The Law Firm Defendants further argued that, if the Court did not 5 dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court should transfer the claims against them 6 to the District of Colorado where they are properly subject to personal jurisdiction. ECF 7 No. 43-1, at 18. 8 The Court found that the Law Firm Defendants’ conduct occurred entirely in 9 Colorado and that they had not purposefully directed any activity towards California. ECF 10 No. 49-1, at 12. Thus, the Court concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the Law 11 Firm Defendants and transferred the claims against them to the District of Colorado. Id. at 12 12-13. 13 Defendant Courtyards now moves to stay the action pending the resolution of the 14 related Colorado action. ECF No. 54-1, at 2. 15 LEGAL STANDARD 16 “The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its 17 power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis 18 v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “A stay is not a matter of right[.]” Virginian R. 19 Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672 (1926). Rather, it is “an exercise of judicial 20 discretion,” and “[t]he propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the 21 particular case.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (quoting Virginia R. Co., 272 22 U.S. at 672). The party requesting a stay bears the burden of demonstrating that a stay is 23 appropriate. Id. at 434; DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 14-cv-05330-HSG, 2015 24 WL 1967878, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2015). 25 In determining whether to grant a motion to stay, “the competing interests which 26 will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.” Lockyer v. 27 1 Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). These interests include: (1) “the 2 possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or 3 inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3) “the orderly 4 course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and 5 questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. Courts are not limited 6 to these three factors and can consider the totality of the circumstances. Consumer Fin. 7 Prot. Bureau v. Daniel A. Rosen, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-07492-VAP-JDEX, 2023 WL 8 11876966, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2023). 9 DISCUSSION 10 Defendant Courtyards asks the Court to stay this action pending the resolution of the 11 related action in the District of Colorado (“Colorado action”). ECF No. 54-1, at 2. 12 Courtyards argues that (1) the orderly course of justice favors a stay; (2) Plaintiff will not 13 be prejudiced by a stay; and (3) Courtyards will suffer hardship if compelled to proceed. 14 See generally ECF No. 54-1. More specifically, Courtyards argues that a stay will allow 15 threshold questions to be resolved, avoid duplicative discovery and potentially inconsistent 16 findings, and aid in judicial economy. Id. 17 Plaintiff counters that the Colorado action will not resolve any issues in this case and 18 concerns over duplicative discovery are minimal. ECF No. 57, at 5-7. Plaintiff further 19 argues that a stay would result in an unnecessary and prejudicial delay and give rise to 20 concerns regarding evidentiary preservation. Id. at 8-9. Lastly, Plaintiff emphasizes that 21 her theories of liability against Courtyards are not solely based on the conduct of its 22 agents—namely, the Law Firm Defendants—and Courtyards’ reliance thereon, but also on 23 Courtyards’ own actions in allegedly knowing about Plaintiff’s military status and failing 24 to disclose such information to the Law Firm Defendants. Id. at 10. 25 Courtyards’ arguments ignore that all challenged conduct in this case was conducted 26 either by Courtyards or on Courtyards’ own behalf. In fact, Courtyards was initially the 27 1 only Defendant in Plaintiff’s case. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s lease agreement was with 2 Courtyards, and Courtyards was the plaintiff in the allegedly baseless unlawful detainer 3 action in which the allegedly false affidavit was filed. Considering Plaintiff’s allegations, 4 Courtyards is the central figure in this litigation. 5 Thus, Plaintiff should not be denied the opportunity to promptly pursue her action 6 against Courtyards—and the other Defendants in this case—in the venue of her choosing 7 where this Court’s personal jurisdiction over the remaining Defendants is not challenged 8 simply because this Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Law Firm Defendants. Such 9 a decision would result in an unreasonable delay in Plaintiff’s pursuit of justice. 10 Further, during the delay of a stay, “through no fault of the parties, relevant evidence 11 could be lost or destroyed, memories could fade, and pertinent witnesses could move out 12 of the jurisdiction.” I.K. ex rel. E.K. v. Sylvan Union Sch. Dist., 681 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1193 13 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (citing New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110, 117 (2000); Blue Cross & Blue 14 Shield of Ala. v. Unity Outpatient Surgery Ctr., Inc., 490 F.3d 718, 724 (9th Cir. 2007)). 15 Plaintiff also accurately points out that, while Courtyards emphasizes the duplicative nature 16 of the two cases, much of the conduct in this case—Courtyards’ own conduct and that of 17 its other agents—is not connected to the Colorado action. Thus, Courtyards’ arguments 18 regarding the burdensome duplicative nature of the two cases are “overstated and 19 unpersuasive.” Id. at 1194. 20 Any potential hardship Courtyards may suffer due to overlapping discovery does not 21 outweigh the potential damage or inequity that would result from allowing Courtyards to 22 avoid litigation by taking advantage of the current procedural posture of the case. Overall, 23 Courtyards has not borne its burden of showing that a stay is appropriate, and the 24 circumstances of this particular case do not convince the Court otherwise. See Nken, 556 25 U.S. at 433. Thus, the Court exercises its “broad discretion” in declining to stay this action 26 27 1 ||pending the resolution of the related Colorado proceedings against the Law Firm 2 || Defendants. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 706. 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons outlined above, Defendant Courtyards Owners, LLC’s motion to 5 || stay, ECF No. 54, is DENIED. The Court VACATES the hearing scheduled for June 18, 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: June 10, 2026 2 aaho Ox 8 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 25-CV-00740-GPC-BLM