govinfo:USCOURTS-casd-3_25-cv-00740-1

1 
25-CV-00740-GPC-BLM 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
LOUISE GUZMAN, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
Courtyards Owner, LLC; Carinal Group 
Management Midwest, Inc.; Asset Living 
Corporation; Tschetter Sulzer Muccio, 
P.C.; Victor Lewis Sulzer, Esq.; John 
Doe; and Central Portfolio Control, Inc., 
Defendants. 

 
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT 
COURTYARDS OWNER, LLC’S 
MOTION TO STAY 
 
[ECF No. 54] 
 
 This case arises from the filing and prosecution of a Colorado unlawful detainer 
action against Plaintiff Louise Guzman, an active-duty United States Marine, after she had 
already vacated the premises pursuant to military orders. See ECF No. 29. This Court 
previously found that it lacked jurisdiction over two law firm Defendants and transferred 
the claims against those Defendants to the District of Colorado. ECF No. 49. Defendant 
Courtyards Owner, LLC now moves to stay the action pending the resolution of the related 
Colorado case. ECF No. 54. For the reasons outlined below, the Court DENIES the motion 
to stay. Accordingly, the Court also VACATES the hearing scheduled for June 18, 2026. 
Case 3:25-cv-00740-GPC-JAC Document 60 Filed 06/10/26 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 1 of 6
 
 
2 
25-CV-00740-GPC-BLM 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
BACKGROUND 
I. Factual Background 
The facts of this case have been detailed by the Court in previous orders. See ECF 
No. 49. Thus, the Court will recount only those facts relevant to the motion now before it. 
In June 2023, Plaintiff entered into a residential lease agreement with Defendant 
Courtyards Owner, LLC (“Courtyards”) for an apartment in Aurora, Colorado, while 
serving as a reservist in the United States Marine Corps. See ECF No. 29, ¶¶ 32–39. The 
property is owned by Courtyards. Id. ¶ 34. During the lease application process, Plaintiff 
disclosed her military status and provided documentation confirming that status. Id. ¶ 36. 
In November 2023, Plaintiff received Permanent Change of Station orders requiring 
her to relocate to San Diego, California. Id. ¶ 40. Plaintiff alleges that she notified her 
apartment complex of her military orders, completed her move -out process, turned in her 
keys, and vacated the apartment on or about January 26, 2024. Id. ¶¶ 41–45. 
Despite Plaintiff’s prior vacancy, Courtyards, through counsel, filed a Colorado 
forcible entry and detainer action against Plaintiff on July 9, 2024 . Id. ¶ 46. An affidavit 
filed as part of the lawsuit asserted that Plaintiff was not in military service. Id. ¶ 47. 
Plaintiff allege s that Courtyards, as the owner and principal of the residential 
property at issue, negligently entrusted property management and eviction enforcement to 
its agent without meaningful oversight. Id. ¶ 57. Plaintiff also alleges additional theories 
of liability against Courtyards in relation to Courtyards’ purported knowledge that Plaintiff 
was in military service and role as the plaintiff in the Colorado unlawful detainer lawsuit. 
See generally ECF No. 29. 
Plaintiff further argues that Courtyards is vicariously liable for conduct of each of 
the other Defendants in this case—including those transferred to the District of Colorado—
in their capacity as Courtyards’ agents. Id. ¶ 58. 
II. Procedural Background 
Case 3:25-cv-00740-GPC-JAC Document 60 Filed 06/10/26 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 2 of 6
 
 
3 
25-CV-00740-GPC-BLM 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Plaintiff’s suit previously included Defendants Tschetter Sulzer Muccio, P.C., and 
Lewis Sulzer, Esq (“Law Firm Defendants”). ECF No. 29, ¶¶ 22–23. In January 2026, the 
Law Firm Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper 
venue. ECF No. 43. The Law Firm Defendants further argued that, if the Court did not 
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court should transfer the claims against them 
to the District of Colorado where they are properly subject to personal jurisdiction. ECF 
No. 43-1, at 18. 
The Court found that the Law Firm Defendants’ conduct occurred entirely in 
Colorado and that they had not purposefully directed any activity towards California. ECF 
No. 49-1, at 12. Thus, the Court concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the Law 
Firm Defendants and transferred the claims against them to the District of Colorado. Id. at 
12-13. 
Defendant Courtyards now moves to stay the action pending the resolution of the 
related Colorado action. ECF No. 54-1, at 2. 
LEGAL STANDARD 
“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its 
power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (citing Landis 
v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “A stay is not a matter of right[.]” Virginian R. 
Co. v. United States , 272 U.S. 658, 672 (1926). Rather, it is “an exercise of judicial 
discretion,” and “[t]he propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the 
particular case.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (quoting Virginia R. Co., 272 
U.S. at 672). The party requesting a stay bears the burden of demonstrating that a stay is 
appropriate. Id. at 434; DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 14-cv-05330-HSG, 2015 
WL 1967878, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 1, 2015). 
In determining whether to grant a motion to stay, “the competing interests which 
will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed.” Lockyer v. 
Case 3:25-cv-00740-GPC-JAC Document 60 Filed 06/10/26 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 3 of 6
 
 
4 
25-CV-00740-GPC-BLM 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
Mirant Corp ., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). These interests include: (1) “the 
possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, ” (2) “the hardship or 
inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, ” and (3) “the orderly 
course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and 
questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. Courts are not limited 
to these three factors and can consider the totality of the circumstances. Consumer Fin. 
Prot. Bureau v. Daniel A. Rosen, Inc ., No. 2:21 -CV-07492-VAP-JDEX, 2023 WL 
11876966, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2023). 
DISCUSSION 
Defendant Courtyards asks the Court to stay this action pending the resolution of the 
related action in the District of Colorado (“Colorado action”). ECF No. 54 -1, at 2. 
Courtyards argues that (1) the orderly course of justice favors a stay; (2) Plaintiff will not 
be prejudiced by a stay; and (3) Courtyards will suffer hardship if compelled to proceed. 
See generally ECF No. 54-1. More specifically, Courtyards argues that a stay will allow 
threshold questions to be resolved, avoid duplicative discovery and potentially inconsistent 
findings, and aid in judicial economy. Id. 
Plaintiff counters that the Colorado action will not resolve any issues in this case and 
concerns over duplicative discovery are minimal . ECF No. 57, at 5 -7. Plaintiff further 
argues that a stay would result in an unnecessary and prejudicial delay and give rise to 
concerns regarding evidentiary preservation . Id. at 8-9. Lastly, Plaintiff emphasizes that 
her theories of liability against Courtyards are not solely based on the conduct of its 
agents—namely, the Law Firm Defendants—and Courtyards’ reliance thereon, but also on 
Courtyards’ own actions in allegedly knowing about Plaintiff’s military status and failing 
to disclose such information to the Law Firm Defendants. Id. at 10. 
Courtyards’ arguments ignore that all challenged conduct in this case was conducted 
either by Courtyards or on Courtyards’ own behalf. In fact, Courtyards was initially the 
Case 3:25-cv-00740-GPC-JAC Document 60 Filed 06/10/26 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 4 of 6
 
 
5 
25-CV-00740-GPC-BLM 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
only Defendant in Plaintiff’s case. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s lease agreement was with 
Courtyards, and Courtyards was the plaintiff in the allegedly baseless unlawful detainer 
action in which the allegedly false affidavit was filed. Considering Plaintiff’s allegations, 
Courtyards is the central figure in this litigation. 
Thus, Plaintiff should not be denied the opportunity to promptly pursue her action 
against Courtyards—and the other Defendants in this case —in the venue of her choosing 
where this Court’s personal jurisdiction over the remaining Defendants is not challenged 
simply because this Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Law Firm Defendants. Such 
a decision would result in an unreasonable delay in Plaintiff’s pursuit of justice. 
Further, during the delay of a stay, “through no fault of the parties, relevant evidence 
could be lost or destroyed, memories could fade, and pertinent witnesses could move out 
of the jurisdiction.” I.K. ex rel. E.K. v. Sylvan Union Sch. Dist., 681 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1193 
(E.D. Cal. 2010) (citing New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110, 117 (2000); Blue Cross & Blue 
Shield of Ala. v. Unity Outpatient Surgery Ctr., Inc., 490 F.3d 718, 724 (9th Cir. 2007)). 
Plaintiff also accurately points out that, while Courtyards emphasizes the duplicative nature 
of the two cases, much of the conduct in this case —Courtyards’ own conduct and that of 
its other agents—is not connected to the Colorado action. Thus, Courtyards’ arguments 
regarding the burdensome duplicative nature of the two cases are “overstated and 
unpersuasive.” Id. at 1194. 
Any potential hardship Courtyards may suffer due to overlapping discovery does not 
outweigh the potential damage or inequity that would result from allowing Courtyards to 
avoid litigation by taking advantage of the current procedural posture of the case. Overall, 
Courtyards has not borne its burden of showing that a stay is appropriate, and the 
circumstances of this particular case do not convince the Court otherwise. See Nken, 556 
U.S. at 433. Thus, the Court exercises its “broad discretion” in declining to stay this action 
Case 3:25-cv-00740-GPC-JAC Document 60 Filed 06/10/26 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 5 of 6
 
 
6 
25-CV-00740-GPC-BLM 
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
pending the resolution of the related Colorado proceedings against the Law Firm 
Defendants. Clinton, 520 U.S. at 706. 
CONCLUSION 
 For the reasons outlined above, Defendant Courtyards Owners, LLC’s motion to 
stay, ECF No. 54, is DENIED. The Court VACATES the hearing scheduled for June 18, 
 IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 10, 2026 
 
Case 3:25-cv-00740-GPC-JAC Document 60 Filed 06/10/26 PageID.<pageID> 
Page 6 of 6

Passage view · GavelSight