Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV02274, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02274    Hearing Date: January 24, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Lauren Ruggiero (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant City of Los Angeles (the “City”) and 2003 Bouquet Canyon LLC dba Canyon Apartments (“Bouquet Canyon”), erroneously sued and served as the Canyon Apartments, for damages arising from Plaintiff’s trip and fall on a sidewalk.  Plaintiff alleges that defendants allowed a dangerous condition to exist on the sidewalk caused by overgrown tree roots underneath the sidewalk.  Bouquet Canyon motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s complaint was heard and granted on August 23, 2022.  On November 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the order granting Bouquet Canyon’s motion for summary judgment. 

            At this time, the City moves for a temporary stay of the proceedings and to vacate or continue the current trial date of February 9, 2023, pending Plaintiff’s appeal.  Plaintiff submitted a declaration of non-opposition to the motion, and December 21, 2022, the City and Plaintiff filed a stipulation for a temporary stay.   

CCP § 128 gives the Court broad power to control the actions before it.  “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.)  A stay of proceedings is an equitable remedy, the issuance of which rests in the Court's discretion.  (See, e.g., Webster v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 46 Cal. 3d 338, 345.)

Here, the City asserts that it will suffer irreparable harm because it will be forced to incur time, costs, and fees participating in Plaintiff’s continued prosecution of this matter, as the City will be forced to proceed in two separate trials if Plaintiff’s appeal is affirmed.  The City argues that staying the case would potentially prevent the need for multiple trials.  Further, the City asserts that if the current trial date proceeds, the City would not be able to point the finger at Bouquet Canyon, even though it could be held responsible if Plaintiff’s appeal is successful.  The City avers the interests of justice will best be served by staying the action and continuing or vacating the current trial date. 

Given that the parties stipulate to the requested relief, the Court finds staying the action temporarily pending Plaintiff’s appeal promotes just and efficient resolution of the action. 

The motion to stay is granted.  The Court vacates the January 26, 2023 Final Status Conference and the February 9, 2023 trial dates.  The Court sets an Order to Show Cause Re: Status of Plaintiff’s Appeal for ______________. 

The City is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 24^th day of January 2023