EDWARD ROBINSON VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC.

statutes of repose and limitations took effect. Accordingly, such a determination would affect the action at hand where Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle in subject vehicle in 2022 and filed the complaint around 2025.

In opposition, Defendant argues Plaintiff's Motion fails to comply with California Rule of Court 3.1306 as Plaintiff fails to properly request judicial notice of the records; Plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of establishing the balance of equities; and the motion is simply a delay tactic designed to manage its own overwhelming litigation caseload as a matter of last resort.

The court denies the motion to stay proceedings. First, regardless of taking judicial notice of Exhibits A through C, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that a stay would be in the interest of justice or promote judicial efficiency. Plaintiffs are seeking a stay for an unknown period of time. This would be highly prejudicial to GM. If needed, Plaintiffs could file a motion for reconsideration after the Court of Appeal makes its ruling. Based on the foregoing, the motion to stay proceedings is DENIED.

GENERAL MOTORS, LLC. MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS Date of Hearing: August 27, 2026 Trial Date: June 8, 2027 Department: 529 Case No.: 25STCV09048 Moving Party: Plaintiff Edward Robinson Responding Party: Defendant General Motors LLC

BACKGROUND On March 27, 2025, Plaintiff Edward Robinson filed a complaint against General Motors, LLC for various violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act as well as fraudulent concealment. On August 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Upon the sustaining of a demurrer, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has now filed a Third Amended Complaint on May 11, 2026.

[TENTATIVE] RULING: Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings is DENIED.

DISCUSSION Plaintiff Edward Robinson moves to stay all proceedings in the instant matter, pending the Court of Appeal's decision in Price v. General Motors (B353231, app. Pending). Plaintiff makes the motion on the grounds that doing so would promote judicial economy and promote the interest of justice by preventing inconsistent verdicts on the same issue of law in superior courts statewide.

A "court ordinarily has inherent power, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice.' (People v. Bell (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 323, 329.) As the Court in Landis v. North American Co. (1936) 299 U.S. 248, 254, explained, 'the 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." (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 141; see also Frieberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1489 ["Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency."].)

Plaintiff argues Price will decide a novel legal issue that is implicated in this case: whether a manufacturer's post-filing election into the Song-Beverly Act's new procedural regime can retroactively time-bar a complaint that was already on file when the new statutes of repose and limitations took effect. Accordingly, such a determination would affect the action at hand where Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle in subject vehicle in 2018 and filed the complaint around 2025.

In opposition, Defendant argues Plaintiff's Motion fails to comply with California Rule of Court 3.1306 as Plaintiff fails to properly request judicial notice of the records and Plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of establishing the balance of equities.

The court denies the motion to stay proceedings. First, regardless of taking judicial notice of Exhibits A through C, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a stay would be in the interest of justice or promote judicial efficiency. Plaintiff is seeking a stay for an unknown period of time. This would be highly prejudicial to GM. If needed, Plaintiff could file a motion for reconsideration after the Court of Appeal makes its ruling. Based on the foregoing, the motion to stay proceedings is DENIED.

Case Number: 26STCP00859 Hearing Date: August 27, 2026 Dept: 529 INVESTOR PARTNERS INC. VS LILIANA RUTH NAVA-CEJUDO MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND APPOINT ARBITRATOR Date of Hearing: August 27, 2026 Trial Date: None set Department: 529 Case No.: 26STCP00859 Moving Party: Petitioner Investor Partners, Inc. dba Bruce Jay Associates Responding Party: Respondent Liliana Ruth Nava-Cejudo

BACKGROUND On March 3, 2026, Petitioner Investor Partners, Inc. dba Bruce Jay Associates filed a verified petition to compel arbitration against Liliana Ruth Nava-Cejudo.

[TENTATIVE] RULING Petitioner Investor Partners, Inc. dba Bruce Jay Associates's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Appoint Arbitrator is CONTINUED.

DISCUSSION Petitioner Investor Partners, Inc. dba Bruce Jay Associates moved for an order to compel arbitration and appoint arbitrator on the grounds the parties entered into a Business Listing Agreement, which included an agreement to arbitrate all disputes arising out of the Agreement.