Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 21STCV20102, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20102    Hearing Date: January 25, 2024    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:  Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Determination of Administrative Proceeding Before the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission [C.C.P. §128].

The motion is denied.

Background

In this FEHA case, RIAD ROY ITANI (“Plaintiff”) alleges that the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (“Defendant”) engaged in discrimination and retaliation, based on his age and national origin/race, including by not promoting him.

Defendant has filed a motion seeking a stay of this action pending the outcome of an administrative proceeding Plaintiff filed that it pending before the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission (the “Administrative Proceeding”). Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Legal Standard

An employee may, but need not, exhaust a city’s internal grievance procedures in addition to FEHA's administrative remedy, before pursuing a FEHA action in superior court.  Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 1074, 1092.  If an employee proceeds with internal grievance procedures, it is theoretically possible, although not automatic, that an adverse determination by a civil service commission can become collateral estoppel or res judicata, depending on factors not now before the Court in this case.  See, e.g., McDonald v. Antelope Valley Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2008) 45 Cal. 4th 88, 113 (“plaintiff elected to pursue her discrimination claim before a civil service commission, which held numerous hearings and ultimately entered an adverse ruling. Rather than challenge the ruling through available judicial avenues, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the DFEH. The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust her judicial remedies by not seeking mandamus, the civil service commission's findings were binding until set aside, and those findings barred her FEHA complaint from going forward.”).

“Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.”   Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.  CCP sections 128(a)(4) and 187 are “generic statements of the court's powers to formulate suitable procedures and command obedience to its orders….”  Clark v. Optical Coating Lab. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 150, 164-65.

Analysis

The Court notes that, per the Minute Order entered 11/9/22, the Defendant informed the Court that the Administrative Proceeding was still pending. The Court thus lifted the stay it had initially issued in this case on 1/25/22 and set a trial date for 2/20/24.  Because the Court lifted the stay while the Administrative Proceeding was then still pending, it appears impliedly that the Court exercised its discretion to lift the stay because of inordinate delay with the Administrative Proceeding. 

Such delay remains apparent to date because there is no clarity as to when the Administrative Proceeding will conclude.  While the potential of collateral estoppel or res judicata theoretically could make a stay more efficient than allowing both administrative and civil cases to proceed simultaneously, this Court likewise seeks to avoid excessive delay in reaching some resolution of Plaintiff’s matters.  Further, Defendant has cited no authority mandating a stay, and the Court’s own independent research has revealed no such governing case law.

Therefore, the motion for a stay is denied. The Court expects to discuss the discovery and trial schedule with the parties at the hearing.