Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 22STC10943, Date: 2024-07-01 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

On May 4, 2022, Plaintiff R. J. (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District and DOES 2 through 25 (“Defendants”), alleging the following causes of action: (1) Negligence and (2) Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Supervision. Trial is currently set for August 5, 2024.

On May 13, 2024, Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“District”) filed the instant Motion for Stay of Proceedings or Alternatively, to Continue Trial. On June 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On June 20, 2024, District filed a reply.

The District requests judicial notice of the following: (1) Petition of Writ in Roe #2 v. Superior Court, No. B334707 (SBCSC No. 22CV05157) on the constitutional issue of AB 218 and the gift clause dated January 25, 2024 – Ex. 1; (2) California Second District Court of Appeal Request to real parties in interest for informal response to petition for writ in Roe #2 v. Superior Court, No. B334707 (SBCSC No. 22CV05157) dated March 27, 2024 – Ex. 2; (3) Order of Dismissal in O.B. v. Los Unified School District, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 21STCV05971 by the Hon. John J. Kralik dated April 29, 2024, on defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings to plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint – Ex. 3; (4) Ruling by the Hon. John J. Kralik dated April 29, 2024, on defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint – Ex. 4; (5) Transcript of November 1, 2023 Hearing on Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in re: O.B. vs. Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 22STCV11052. – Ex. 5; (6) June 6, 2024, tentative ruling granting a motion to stay in the matter entitled, Doe v. Barstow Unified School Dist., San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case No. CIVSB2227304. – Ex. 6; (7) June 6, 2024, tentative ruling granting a motion to stay in the matter entitled, Doe v. Padilla; Davis Joint Unified School District, Yolo County Superior Court, Case No. CV-2024-0561. – Ex. 7; (8) Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings in the matter entitled, Joseph Doe 804 v. Doe 1, et al., Merced County Superior Court, Case No. 22SV-04126. – Ex. 8; and (9) Notice of Oral Argument in the appellate court in the matter entitled, West Contra Costa Unified School District v. The Superior Court of Contra Costa County, Appeal No. A169314. – Ex. 9.

The request for judicial notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code Sections 452, subdivision (d), (h), and 453 (except as to the truth of the matters stated therein).

“Except as provided in Sections 917.1 to 917.9, inclusive, and in Section 116.810, the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 916, subd. (a).)

A trial court proceeding affects the effectiveness of an appeal if “the possible outcomes on appeal and the actual or possible results of the proceeding are irreconcilable” or “the very purpose of the appeal is to avoid the need for that proceeding.” (Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 180, 190.) Furthermore, the court must consider: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” (Nken v. Holder (2009) 556 U.S. 418, 426.)

The District moves to stay this present lawsuit pending resolution of review and decision arising from a Petition for Writ filed by District in the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Six (the “Appellate Court”) concerning the constitutionality of Assembly Bill (“AB”) 218.

The Court recognizes that the writ petition pending before the Appellate Court, while it challenges the ruling of a trial court in Santa Barbara County and not a judgment or order made by this Court, it does relate to the same issue as was raised in this Court, i.e., the constitutionality of AB 218. The Court sees no reason to stay these proceedings; however, as it is less than six weeks until the current trial date, the Court will continue the trial for 8 months to April 21, 2025 at 9:30 am; the Final Status Conference (“FSC”) is advanced and continued to April 7, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. All Pretrial and Exhibit binders are to conform to the Department Rules and are to be lodged with the Court at least five court days before the FSC, and personal appearance of the trial lawyers is ordered at the FSC.

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 proved 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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court