Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV01301, Date: 2024-06-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22SMCV01301 Hearing Date: June 24, 2024 Dept: P
Tentative Ruling
Jane
Doe D.S. v. Doe 1, a public entity, et al., Case No. 22SMCV01301
Hearing
date June 24, 2024
Defendant
Doe 1’s Motion to Stay Proceedings
In this childhood sexual abuse case,
defendant Doe 1/Santa Monica-Malibu School District seeks to stay for six
months, pending issuance of an appellate opinion regarding the issue of whether
AB 218 constitutes a gift of public funds in the pending appellate case West
Contra Costa Unified School District.
On a prior MJOP
in this matter, defendant District similarly argued
retroactive application of AB 218 against the District violates Article XVI
Section 6 of the California Constitution, which prohibits gifts of public
funds. This court denied, reasoning that AB 218 does not provide a gift,
directly appropriate money or retroactively create liability where none
existed.
The parties request judicial notice
of various documents in the West Contra Costa Unified School District v.
Contra Costa County Superior Court, No. A169314 (First District Cout of
Appeal) and Roe #2 v. Superior Court of California County of Santa Barbara,
No. B334707 (Second District Court of Appeal)
matters. All requests are granted per Evid. Code §§452-453 as to the existence
and authenticity only, but not as to the truth of the factual matters asserted.
Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 389, 400.
Motion to Stay
Proceedings
Defendant seeks to stay
pending a ruling in West Contra Costa Unified, as to whether
AB 218 violates the gift clause of the California Constitution. Defendant District
argues judicial efficiency and preservation of resources dictates a stay is
appropriate. District also argues proceeding herein may be unnecessary if the court
there invalidates certain portions of AB 218. Further, defendant argues potential
prejudice, as it will expend resources litigating plaintiff’s claims, which may
be unnecessary depending on the ruling. Defendant does acknowledge several
witnesses are elderly and may be incapacitated or unavailable to testify by the
time the appellate matter is resolved, so proposes an order allowing the
parties to conduct limited discovery to preserve evidence.
Plaintiff argues the
motion should be denied for lack of authority, and staying the action will
prejudice her rights.
AB 218 has withstood
several prior challenges. Defendant’s arguments are speculative. The court
finds no statutory or case law authority compelling a stay herein. AB 218 was found
constitutional in Coats v. New Haven Unified School District (2020), 46 Cal.App.5th 415, wherein the court explained the
legislative history made clear the purpose of AB 218 was to allow actions, such
as this one, to be brought against public entities. Id. at 429.
Issuance of a stay is discretionary. Bailey
v. Fosca Oil Co. (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 813, 817. Smith v. Jones
(1900) 128 Cal. 14, 15 held 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.”
The
court declines to stay the action. Plaintiff may be prejudiced were the matter
to be stayed, and it is speculative as to what the appellate court might rule
(and when) and how such a ruling might potentially impact plaintiff D.S.’s claims.
DENIED.