Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV44293, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling
Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.
Case Number: 21STCV44293 Hearing Date: March 29, 2023 Dept: 52
Defendant County of Los Angeles’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication
Defendant County of Los Angeles moves for summary judgment of plaintiff Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs’ action for declaratory relief.
In its opposition, plaintiff argues the court should stay this action pending the appeal in Case No. 22STCP01254, a petition for writ of mandate by petitioner Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs against respondent County of Los Angeles (mandate action). 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.)
In the mandate action, the court sustained the County’s demurrer to the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs’ amended petition for writ of mandate without leave to amend. (Opp. RJN, Ex. E.) The court ruled, “[T]he amended petition alleges [Rule 18.10]—which purports to give the County’s personnel director the authority of an ‘appointing power’ to discipline County employees for noncompliance with the Policy—violates the Enabling Law and the Charter. Petitioner argues the Sheriff has exclusive rights over the discipline of Sheriff’s Department employees.” (Id., p. 5.) The court concluded the Board of Supervisors had the power to “amend the civil service rules to define who is an appointing power.” (Id., p. 6.) The court further concluded that Rule 18.10 did not violate the Enabling Law (Gov. Code, § 31108) or the County Charter. (Id., pp. 6-8.) The Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs appealed the order. (Opp. RJN, Ex. F.)
The court will exercise its discretion to stay this action pending the appeal in case No. 22STCP01254. That appeal may result in an opinion substantially impacting or even completely deciding the legal issues presented in this motion and this action. This motion centers around pure issues of law already decided by Judge Beckloff and currently on appeal. The motion, like the writ petition and the appeal, turn on the County’s power and the Sheriff’s power under the applicable laws. Deciding this motion now could result in conflicting rulings, both within the Los Angeles Superior Court and between this court and the Court of Appeal.
Furthermore, few material facts are disputed. Plaintiff did not dispute any of the 10 facts in defendant’s separate statement of undisputed material facts. Of the 44 facts asserted in plaintiff’s separate statement of additional undisputed facts, defendant disputed No. 8 “as phrased,” objected to Nos. 24 to 37 as lacking supporting evidence, and responded to several others with a qualified “undisputed.” The need for discovery in this action is at most minimal.
The court finds that staying this action in its entirety will serve the interests of justice and promote judicial economy.
Disposition
The court hereby stays the entire action pending the appeal in case No. 22STCP01254, Court of Appeal case No. B326243. The court hereby vacates the hearing on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The court hereby sets a status conference for December 6, 2023, at 8:30 a.m.
Plaintiff Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs’ Notice of Related Case
Plaintiff Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs filed a notice of related case for this case and two others: (1) Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles, et al., No. 22STCP01254; and (2) Professional Peace Officers Association v. County of Los Angeles, et al., No. 22STCP01226.
Relating and reassigning cases is discretionary. California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1) provides, “In a court in which cases are assigned to a single judge or department, cases may be ordered related.”
The court exercises its discretion to decline finding the cases related. The parties to this action did not timely seek to relate the cases. “Whenever a party in a civil action knows or learns that the action or proceeding is related to another action or proceeding pending, dismissed, or disposed of by judgment in any state or federal court in California, the party must serve and file a Notice of Related Case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(b).) Plaintiff filed this action on December 3, 2021. The other two proceedings were filed in April 2022. On the same day plaintiff filed case No. 22STCP01254, it filed a notice of related case seeking to find it related to No. 22STCP01226. Plaintiff’s notice of related case did not, however, include this action it filed four months earlier.
At this point, finding the cases related would not serve the interest of judicial economy. In case No. 22STCP01254, the court already sustained a demurrer without leave to amend. The Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs appealed that order. The appeal is pending. Meanwhile, in case No. 22STCP01226, on December 16, 2022, the court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend as to the petition for writ of mandate. The court then transferred the remainder of the action for reassignment to an independent calendar court. There have thus already been substantial rulings on the merits of those cases. Relating and reassigning those cases to this court now would not be likely to reduce any duplication of judicial resources.
The court finds the cases are not related and not reassigned.