Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 20STCV10684, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV10684 Hearing Date: January 20, 2023 Dept: 56
SUPERIOR
COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
|
Plaintiff, vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., et
al.,
Defendants. |
|
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS Date: January 20, 2023 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 |
MOVING
PARTY: Defendant Southern California
Permanente Medical Group (“Moving Defendant”)
RESPONDING
PARTY: Plaintiff
The Court has considered the moving and opposition
papers. No reply papers were filed. Any reply papers were required to have been
filed and served at least five court days before the hearing under California Code
of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).[1]
BACKGROUND
On November 16, 2022, the Court
granted Moving Defendant’s motion to disqualify Twila S. White (“White”) as
Plaintiff’s counsel (the “DQ Motion”). On
December 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the November 16, 2022
order disqualifying White. On December
22, 2022, Moving Defendant filed a motion for stay (the “Motion”). The Motion requests that the Court stay
proceedings in this matter pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s appeal of
White’s disqualification order.
DISCUSSION
An
appeal of an order disqualifying an attorney automatically stays enforcement of
the order. (URS Corp. v.
Atkinson/Walsh Joint Venture (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 872, 887.) Typically, an automatic stay of a
disqualification order does not extend to all trial court proceedings. (Id. at 888.) The scope of the automatic stay in the
disqualification context depends on the facts of the particular case. (Id. at 889.)
A court ordinarily has inherent power, in its discretion,
to stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice. (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th
111, 141.) The power to stay proceedings
is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition
of the cause on its docket with the economy of time and effort for itself, for
counsel, and for litigants. (Id.)
White’s disqualification was based on her ex parte
contact with represented witnesses. In
light of the reason for White’s disqualification, the Court finds it
appropriate to stay the matter in its entirety pending the resolution of
White’s appeal. The Court therefore
GRANTS the Motion. The final status
conference and trial dates are vacated.
The Court sets a status conference on July 20, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. in this
department. The parties are ordered to
file a joint status report by July 13, 2023.
Should the appeal of the disqualification order be resolved before the
status conference date, either party may request an early status conference by
ex parte application.
Moving
party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
In consideration
of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages
that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect
if the parties do not submit on the tentative. If you instead
intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send
an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the
hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in
person. The Court will then inform you by close of business that day
of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at
any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule
the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal
appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that
adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.
Parties
who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at
SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court
website at www.lacourt.org. If the
department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the
hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.
Dated this 20th day of January 2023
|
|
|
|
|
Hon.
Holly J. Fujie Judge
of the Superior Court |
[1] The Court has considered
Plaintiff’s opposition papers although they were not timely filed under CCP
section 1005, subdivision (b).