Judge David B. Gelfound, Case Number: 23CHCV01086, Date: 2024-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 23CHCV01086, Date: 2024-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV01086 Hearing Date: August 19, 2024 Dept: F49

Motion filed: 6/26/24

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Defendant William S. Hart Union High School District

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Jane Doe M.K.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting William S. Hart Union High School District’s Motion to Stay Proceedings in this matter pending the decisions of two matters currently before the Court of Appeals regarding the constitutionality of California Assembly Bill 218 (“AB 218”).

RECOMMENDED RULING: The motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is a childhood sexual abuse case.

On November 7, 2022, Plaintiff Jane Doe M.K. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Doe 1, a public entity; Doe 2, an individual employed by Doe 1, and Does 3 through 60. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed amendments to the Complaint on April 7 and June 20, 20, 2023, substituting Defendant/Cross-Defendant William S. Hart Union High School District (“District” or “Defendant/Cross-Defendant”) for Doe 1 and Defendant Martin John Spalding (“Spalding” or “Defendant/Cross-Complainant”) for Doe 2, respectively. District and Spalding filed their respective Answers to the Complaint on May 17, and July 26, 2023, respectively.

On July 26, 2023, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Spalding filed a Cross-Complaint against Defendant/Cross-Defendant District, and Roes 1 to 100, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Implied Equitable Indemnity, (2) Total Equitable Indemnity, (3) Apportionment; Contribution and Partial Indemnity, (4) Declaratory Relief, and (5) Apportionment of Fault. District filed its Answer to the Cross-Complaint on August 25, 2023.

On June 26, 2024, District filed the instant Motion to Stay Proceedings. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed her Opposition on August 6, 2024, and District replied on August 12, 2024.

ANALYSIS

The court has the inherent authority to “amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).)

Courts “have an inherent obligation to decide cases properly brought before them[.]” (Top Ins. Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1331, 1345.) “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.) They may also exercise their inherent power to “prevent wrongful use of process….” (Western Steel & Ship Repair, Inc. v. RMI, Inc. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 1108, 1116.)

A. Request for Judicial Notice

The Court GRANTS District’s Requests for Judicial Notice (“RJN”). The Court also GRANTS Plaintiff’s RJN. (Evid. Code § 452, subds. (c), (d), (h); People v. Morales (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 502, 511 fn. 7 [courts may take judicial notice of information published on official government websites].) However, the Court takes judicial notice only as to “the existence, content and authenticity of public records and other specified documents”; it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted in those documents. (Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 389, 400.)

B. Motion to Stay Proceedings

Courts may postpone cases when, “it would not only be the right of the judge to do so, but it would be his duty, in the interest of justice, and to promote the substantial rights of the parties[.]”( Smith v. Jones (1900) 128 Cal. 14, 15.)

Here, District seeks to stay this action pending the appeals of two unrelated cases, namely West Contra Costa U.S.D. v. Superior Court (First Appellate District, Case No. A16934) and Roe #2 v. Superior Court (Second Appellate District, Div. 6, Case No. B334707).

District notes that the issue on appeal in both of these cases is the constitutionality of AB 218, which removed the claims presentation requirement for claims against public entities in cases involving childhood sexual abuse that occurred before January 1, 2009. District contends that this case should be stayed pending the outcome of those appeals because AB 218 is at the heart of Plaintiff’s case against Defendant, and if it is found unconstitutional, Plaintiff’s case ends.

District further cites the case of Farmland Irrigation Co. v. Dopplmaier (1957) 48 Cal.2d 208 (Farmland Irrigation) as the criteria for determining whether to stay this action.

The Court finds the factors set forth in Farmland Irrigation do not apply to this case. The Farmland Irrigation court stated, “When an action is brought in a court of this state involving the same parties and the same subject matter as an action already pending in a court of another jurisdiction, a stay of the California proceedings is not a matter of right, but within the sound discretion of the trial court....” (Farmland Irrigation Co. v. Dopplmaier, supra, 48 Cal.2d at p. 215.) (Underlines added.) Here, this action does not involve the same parties or facts as West Contra Costa and Roe #2 v. Superior Court, nor is the Court of Appeal a court of a different jurisdiction or state. Therefore, the Court determines the applicable factors for consideration here are those set forth in Smith v. Jones, supra.

In Opposition, Plaintiff contends the Motion is moot because the Court of Appeal issued its decision in West Contra Costa on July 31, 2024, which upholds the constitutionality of AB 218.

The Court finds Plaintiff’s contention compelling. Since the Court of Appeal has upheld the constitutionality of AB 218, Plaintiff’s claim may proceed against District. The Court therefore does not find that a stay would be in the interest of justice or promote the substantial rights of the parties. (Smith v. Jones, supra, 128 Cal. at p. 15.)

The Court further notes that even if the Second District of the Court of Appeal ultimately reaches a different conclusion in Roe #2 v. Superior Court, it remains within the Court’s discretion to follow either holding. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456; see also Fudge v. City of Laguna Beach (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 193, 199 [no horizontal stare decisis in California].) Consequently, the pending decision in Roe #2 v. Superior Court does not, by itself, provide a basis to stay this case.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the Motion to Stay Proceedings.

CONCLUSION

Defendant/Cross-Defendant William S. Hart Union High School District’s Motion to Stay Proceeding is DENIED as moot.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.