Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV18557, Date: 2024-07-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18557    Hearing Date: July 5, 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

This is a subrogation action brought by Plaintiff The Complete Logistics Company (“Plaintiff”) to recover workers’ compensation benefits paid to its employee, Lydia Gomez (“Gomez”), after she was allegedly injured while making a delivery at a Super Center Concepts, Inc. grocery store.

Plaintiff now moves to stay the proceedings, under the Court’s inherent authority, because Gomez is continuing treatment for her injuries and her workers’ compensation claim is still pending. Therefore, Plaintiff would like to stay this action until the conclusion of the workers’ compensation claim so it may know the amount of damages at issue. Defendant Super Center Concepts, Inc. (“Defendant”) opposes. No reply has been filed.

ANALYSIS

A court generally 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.)

Here, Plaintiff contends that (besides the workers’ compensation claim) there is one related case in this matter that has not been deemed “related” by the Court: 22STCV20833, currently pending in department 29. That case was brought by Gomez for her injuries underlying this subrogation action. Both parties contend that the Notices of Related Cases have not been ruled on.

Plaintiff primarily argues a stay is required until Gomez’s claim is resolved, and the amount of damages is determined. At the time this motion was filed, the trial was set for July 29, 2024. However, as Defendant observes in opposition, since filing this motion, trial has been continued, pursuant to stipulation, to February 13, 2025.

The primary basis for the stay was to prevent Plaintiff from proceeding to trial without updated discovery on the total amount of workers’ compensation benefits it would pay. However, seeing as trial has been continued to February 2025, the Court finds little prejudice to Plaintiff if the stay is denied. As Defendant argues, without the stay, the parties will be able to continue discovery and proceed with the case. Plaintiff also has not filed a reply asserting that it still seeks a stay.

Therefore, the Court exercises its discretion to deny the motion to stay proceedings.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the motion to stay proceedings is DENIED.

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