Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV11653, Date: 2024-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11653    Hearing Date: December 2, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On March 25, 2021, Plaintiff Pantea E. Amini (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Fernando Gutierrez Jr., Fernando E. Gutierrez, and Does 1 to 100 for negligence surrounding a motor vehicle accident.

On October 18, 2021, default was entered against Defendant Fernando Gutierrez Jr. (“Defendant”).

On November 16, 2022, the Court granted default judgment against Defendant for $586,161.10 in damages and $574.10 in costs.

On June 12, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to set aside the default and default judgment.

On July 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal.

Plaintiff now moves for an order to stay the proceedings in this case under Code of Civil Procedure section 916. Defendant opposes and Plaintiff replies.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 916(a) places a stay on certain proceedings in a trial court while an appeal is perfected. The section stays proceedings “upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 916(a).) “The purpose of the automatic stay provision of section 916, subdivision (a) ‘is to protect the appellate court's jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided.’” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189.) A proceeding “affects the effectiveness of an appeal if the possible outcomes on appeal and the actual or possible results of the proceeding are irreconcilable.” (Id. at 190.)¿ 

“In determining whether a proceeding is embraced in or affected by the appeal, we must consider the appeal and its possible outcomes in relation to the proceeding and its possible results. ‘[W]hether a matter is “embraced” in or “affected” by a judgment [or order] within the meaning of [section 916] depends on whether postjudgment [or postorder] proceedings on the matter would have any effect on the “effectiveness” of the appeal.’ [Citation.] ‘If so, the proceedings are stayed; if not, the proceedings are permitted.’¿[Citation.]” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.4th at 189.)

However, “[t]he fact that the postjudgment or postorder proceeding may render the appeal moot is not, by itself, enough to establish that the proceeding affects the effectiveness of the appeal and should be stayed under section 916. Rather, something more is needed. For example, the trial court proceeding must directly or indirectly seek to ‘enforce, vacate or modify [the] appealed judgment or order.’ [Citation.]” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.4th at 189.) “Or the proceeding must substantially interfere with the appellate court's ability to conduct the appeal.” (Id. at 190.) Alternatively, “a proceeding affects the effectiveness of the appeal if the very purpose of the appeal is to avoid the need for that proceeding. In that situation, the proceeding itself is inherently inconsistent with a possible outcome on appeal and must therefore be stayed under section 916, subdivision (a).” (Id.) Also, if the Legislature has established by law that certain proceedings are collateral to the merits of the appeal, then they are not covered under section 916. (Id. at 191 [noting that a motion for new trial is collateral to the judgment; a proceeding to expunge a lis pendens is collateral to the judgment; and a postjudgment or postorder proceeding is collateral if the proceeding could or would have occurred regardless of the outcome of the appeal].)

JUDICIAL NOTICE

The Court grants Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff argues all proceedings should be stayed because the appeal deals with setting aside a default judgment, and if the ruling is reversed, there will be no need for discovery. Therefore, Plaintiff might incur unnecessary costs. Plaintiff argues this motion should be granted to preserve the status quo until the appeal is decided.

In opposition, Defendant argues that the appeal does not preclude discovery from continuing. (Opp., 1-2.) Defendant relies on Wisely v. Superior Court (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 267, 269-70, which discusses Echavarria v. Superior Court (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 467, which involved then-Penal Code section 1370. The court in Echavarria found that Penal Code section 1370 did not bar the court from acting on a request to appoint a psychiatrist, and stated, “[i]nevitably, discovery proceedings, of all varieties, must precede a trial; even an appeal from a judgment does not prevent the carrying on of discovery proceedings.” (Wisely, supra, 175 Cal.App.3d at 270.)

Defendant also argues the discovery should be allowed because the more time that passes, the more likely evidence will be lost. Additionally, he argues the June 12, 2024 ruling will likely be upheld.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s argument that discovery will be unnecessary if the Court of Appeal reverses the order. Moreover, as the California Supreme Court has noted, “a proceeding affects the effectiveness of the appeal if the very purpose of the appeal is to avoid the need for that proceeding. In that situation, the proceeding itself is inherently inconsistent with a possible outcome on appeal and must therefore be stayed under section 916, subdivision (a).” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc., supra, 35 Cal.4th at 190.) Since a potential reversal of the order will render any discovery moot, and absent any clear prejudice to Defendant, the motion to stay proceedings is granted, with the exception that the Court will set hearings regarding the status of the case.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to stay proceedings pending appeal is GRANTED. The matter is set for an Order to Show Cause re Status of Appeal on July 28, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.