Judge Cynthia A Freeland, Case 37-2020-00007435-CU-BC-NC 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Cynthia A Freeland, Case: 37-2020-00007435-CU-BC-NC, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 14, 2023

09/15/2023 01:30:00 PM N-27 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Cynthia A. Freeland

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00007435-CU-BC-NC NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION VS STEFAN [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Order to Stay Proceedings, 05/08/2023

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Stefan Kasian ('Defendant')'s motion to stay all proceedings pending completion of discovery is denied.

First, Defendant provides no arguments or authority supporting a stay in this matter. More specifically, it is well-settled that California Code of Civil Procedure ('CCP') § 128 gives the court the power, inter alia, to 'provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers' and 'amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice.' Cal. Code Civ. P. §§ 128(a)(3), (8).

California courts also possess 'both the inherent authority and responsibility to fairly and efficiently administer all of the judicial proceedings that are pending before it.' People v. Engram (2010) 50 Cal. 4th 1131, 1146. The court's inherent authority includes 'the power . . . to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.' Briggs v. Brown (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 808, 852 (quoting Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936)). '[A] stay gives effect to the general rule that a court ordinarily has inherent power, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice.' St.

Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. AmerisourceBergen Corporation (2022) 80 Cal. App. 5th 1, 6-7 (quoting People v. Bell (1984) 159 Cal. App. 3d 323, 329). However, 'convenience of the courts is best served when motions to stay proceedings are discouraged.' Avant! Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 876, 888. Indeed, courts are 'guided by the strong principle that any elapsed time other than that reasonably required for pleadings and discovery is unacceptable and should be eliminated.' Alpha Media Resort Investment Cases (2019) 39 Cal. App. 5th 1121, 1132.

Defendant contends that: (1) he has not yet received discovery responses from Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Navy Federal Credit Union ('Plaintiff'); (2) trial should be continued at least six months to accommodate Defendant's medical condition under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the 'ADA'); and (3) Judge Freeland has been involved in an unidentified case featuring similar allegations of identity theft thus posing a conflict of interest. Notably, Defendant's motion to stay this action is moot given the fact that: (1) a bench trial was held in this matter on June 1, 2023 which resulted in a Judgment for Plaintiff, and (2) the court sustained Plaintiff's demurrer to Defendant's Cross-Complaint without leave to amend on December 23, 2022. See ROA Nos. 167, 202, 208, 216. In sum, the case is over except to the extent Defendant wishes to pursue his appellate rights, if any. On the merits, Defendant provides no evidence of any case(s) or other information that would have created a conflict of interest for Judge Freeland. To the extent Defendant's argument can be construed as a peremptory challenge, such challenge is denied as untimely. Additionally, to the extent Defendant contends that he did not receive discovery responses from Plaintiff, the court notes that Defendant had remedies Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2973003 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION VS STEFAN [IMAGED] 37-2020-00007435-CU-BC-NC available to him to compel Plaintiff's compliance with his discovery requests under the Civil Discovery Act. Defendant chose not to avail himself of those remedies. Regardless, Defendant fails to articulate how Plaintiff's alleged discovery abuses prejudiced him and/or prevented him from setting forth a complete defense at trial.

Second, although Defendant's motion is styled as a 'Motion to Stay All Proceedings Until Completion of Discovery,' Defendant spends a majority of his brief arguing that trial should be continued under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c). Toward that end, the court finds that Defendant has not demonstrated the requisite good cause. See In re Marriage of Falcone and Fyke (2008) 164 Cal. App. 4th 814, 823; Oliveros v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal. App. 4th 1389, 1398-1399. Again, the motion is moot given the fact that trial in this matter has already been completed. In addition, the court, in denying Defendant's previous continuance request, has already rejected the same arguments he is now raising. Furthermore, at the trial, the court provided Defendant with Communication Access Realtime Translation at his request as an accommodation for his disability(s). Defendant fails to explain how this was insufficient under the ADA or otherwise prejudiced him in his ability to present a complete defense. To the extent Defendant argues that Plaintiff's alleged failure to respond to discovery constitutes a 'change in case status,' the court must respectfully disagree. Again, the Code provides Defendant with an array of remedies he could have pursued to obtain what he felt was relevant discovery. He chose not to do so in this case. Finally, to the extent Defendant argues that he has been the victim of identity theft, the court considered that contention at trial and found Plaintiff's branch manager, Eva Esposito's, testimony on that subject to be more credible.

In light of the foregoing, the court denies Defendant's motion to stay proceedings.

This is the tentative ruling for the hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, September 15, 2023. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of September 15, 2023.

If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2973003