Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV02025, Date: 2025-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV02025    Hearing Date: April 4, 2025    Dept: A

MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is required and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the Court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of theCcourt if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Bryan Delorenzo (Plaintiff) brings this action against Warner Bros. Television (Warner Bros.) The CW Network, Delta Blues Productions LLC, Warner Horizon Scripted Television, Inc., Showalter Productions, Inc., Robbie Thompson, Jensen Ackles, Danneel Ackles, David Goodman, John Showalter, and Albert Dickerson (collectively Defendants).

Plaintiff alleges that Warner Bros. produced the television series The Winchesters, for which Plaintiff worked as a First Assistant Camera Operator. (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 23.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant John Showalter was the director for that show. (Compl. ¶ 19. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants Robbie Thompson and David Goodman were writers on that show, and that Defendant Albert Dickerson was the Unit Production manager for the show. (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 21.)

Plaintiff’s claim of Negligence arises out of an incident which allegedly occurred during the filming of The Winchesters on August 9, 2023 in Jefferson, Louisiana. (Compl. ¶ 21.) Plaintiff generally alleges that, despite clear indications of inclement weather and his complaint of poor conditions, filming continued throughout a heavy rainstorm. (Compl. ¶¶ 24-5.) Plaintiff alleges that a short time later he was struck by lightning. (Compl. ¶¶ 26-27.) Plaintiff alleges at length that Defendants production protocol contains provisions designed to prevent this sort of incident during inclement weather. (Compl. ¶ 29-32.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew of the risks and failed to take measures to safeguard Plaintiff and other employees on set. (Compl. ¶¶ 34-36.)

Before the Court is a motion by Defendants seeking that this action be stayed pending a determination of claims Plaintiff has allegedly submitted to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Defendants argue that because Plaintiff’s claims were filed with the WCAB prior to his initiating this action, the WCAB has exclusive jurisdiction over the adjudication Plaintiff’s claim arising from this dispute.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that his claims in this suit are separate and apart from his claims submitted to the WCAB. Plaintiff essentially argues that his claims against Defendants are different from his worker’s compensation claims such that there is no concurrent jurisdiction between this Court and the WCAB.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

Defendants’ motion presents the issue of concurrent jurisdiction. Concurrent jurisdiction is a judge made doctrine, “…based upon the public policies of avoiding conflicts that might arise between courts if they were free to make contradictory decisions or awards relating to the same controversy and preventing vexatious litigation and multiplicity of suits.” (The Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Lara (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 1119, 1131.) This doctrine is commonly applied in cases where a dispute is adjudicated before both a trial court and state agency. (See Scott v. Industrial Ace. Com. (1956) 46 Cal.2d 76.)  “The only point of concurrent jurisdiction of the two tribunals appears to be jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction; jurisdiction once determined will be exclusive, not concurrent.” (Id. at 82-83.)

Where there is a dispute about whether the superior court or a workers' compensation tribunal has jurisdiction over a claim, both the superior court and the tribunal have concurrent jurisdiction to determine exclusive jurisdiction. (Hollingsworth v. Superior Court (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 927, 934 citing Scott, supra, 46 Cal.2d 89.) The tribunal first assuming jurisdiction retains it to the exclusion of all other tribunals in which the action might have been initiated. (Id. at 929.) The tribunal that did not first assume jurisdiction should not try the case until the tribunal with jurisdiction makes a final determination of the issue of exclusive jurisdiction. (Id. at 934.)

II.                 MERITS

Discussion

Here, Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s claims in this action must be stayed pending the resolution of a claim Plaintiff filed with WCAB. (Dotta Decl. ¶ 9.) Defendants assert that, on August 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Petition for Additional Benefits Per Labor Code §4553 (Serious and Willful Petition)” against Cast and Crew Entertainment Services, LLC (Cast and Crew), Warner Bros., Delta Blues Productions, LLC, Horizon Scripted Television, Inc., and Showalter Productions, Inc. (Dotta Decl. ¶ 10.)

The Court begins by noting that Cast and Crew are not a named Defendant to this action. Plaintiff contends that Case and Crew is his employer, not Warner Bros. or other Defendants. As such, Plaintiff contends that his WCAB petition against Cast and Crew cannot be leveraged by Defendants to achieve a stay in this action. Defendants counter that whether Plaintiff’s claims in overlap with the WCAB action is a determination for the WCAB, because it was the first tribunal to which the claim was submitted.

The Court finds it lacks sufficient evidence to rule upon this motion. Defendants purport to attach Plaintiff’s WCAB petition as Exhibit A to their motion, but no such exhibit is attached. The petition is not attached to any declaration, moving/opposing papers, or even Defendants’ ex parte application to advance the hearing for this motion. As such, the Court cannot determine whether the issue of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction with the WCAB even arises. Without knowing the contents of the petition and the parties named by Plaintiff, the Court cannot say that the claims before the WCAB and Plaintiff’s Complaint are one in the same, such as to create concurrent jurisdiction.

This ambiguity is an increasing cause for concern given that several Defendants are individuals with no apparent connection to Warner Bros. or Cast and Crew. Whether Defendants Robbie Thompson, Jensen Ackles, Danneel Ackles, David Goodman, John Showalter; and Albert Dickerson are employees of Warner Bros. is unknown to the Court. The Court is also unaware if any of these individual Defendants were named in the WCAB action. The Court cannot stay the action as to these individuals with no evidence that Plaintiff’s claims against them have been presented to the WCAB.

Although the Court is inclined to deny the motion without prejudice for failure to present sufficient evidence, it finds a discussion of the propriety of the requested stay to be useful.

Plaintiff’s argument that exclusive concurrent jurisdiction does not apply here appears misinformed. Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ reliance on Le Parc Community Assn. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., 110 Cal.App.4th 1161 (2003) is misplaced. The Court agrees to the extent that Le Parc appears procedurally inapposite. The determination in Le Parc was whether a later filed civil action was subject to dismissal on grounds of res judicata given a prior determination by the WCAB. (Id. at 1165.) Here, the question is whether this Court or the WCAB may exercise jurisdiction in the first place. As such, the principles of Le Parc appear inapplicable to this dispute.

At the same time, ample authority supports the granting of a trial court stay where an overlapping action is pending with the WCAB. (See generally Hollingsworth supra.) Further, even though the word stay was not used by the California Supreme Court in Scott, such a mechanism was clearly contemplated. (See Scott, supra, at 89 [“Thereafter another tribunal, although it might originally have taken jurisdiction, may be restrained by prohibition if it attempts to proceed.”].) Should Defendants provide sufficient evidence that the WCAB claim and this case overlap, case law supports that a stay could be granted. Whether Defendants can do so remains to be seen.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the Court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the Court’s records. 

ORDER 

Defendants’ Motion for Stay of Proceedings came on regularly for hearing on April 4, 2025, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the Court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

PLAINTIFF IS TO GIVE NOTICE.  

IT IS SO ORDERED.