Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22STCV16649, Date: 2024-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16649    Hearing Date: August 1, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     August 1, 2024                                                TRIAL DATE: December 10, 2024

CASE:                         T.C. v. PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; and DOES 2 through 25, inclusive. 

CASE NO.:                 22STCV16649 

MOTION TO STAY THE TRIAL

MOVING PARTY:          Defendant Pasadena Unified School District      

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff T.C.

SERVICE:                             Filed May 2, 2024

OPPOSITION:                      Filed July 3, 2024

REPLY:                                  Filed July 17, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Defendant seeks a motion for stay of proceedings pending the resolution of two pending writs before the First and Second District.

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of Plaintiff T.C.’s (“Plaintiff”) claim he was sexually assaulted from approximately 1985 to 1986. Plaintiff’s claim is a revival claim pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1. Plaintiff alleges he was sexually assaulted while he was a student at Pasadena Unified School District (“PUSD”). Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on March 21, 2023, alleging four causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) negligence, (3) negligent hiring retention, and supervision, and (4) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision.  

TENTATIVE RULING

             Defendant La Canada Unified School District’s Motion to Stay the Trial is DENIED.

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Pursuant to Evidence Code Section 452 and 453, the District requests the Court take judicial notice of the following:

1. On December 18, 2023, West Contra Costa Unified School District filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandate seeking to have the First District Court of Appeal compel the Superior Court of Contra Costa County to reverse its decision overruling a demurrer which had been filed predicated on the fact that AB 218 was an unlawful gift of public funds as applied to claims against public entities for childhood sexual abuse which had occurred prior to January 1, 2009.

2. On December 22, 2023, the Court issued an Order directing that any Opposition to the Petition be filed before January 26, 2024 and a Reply to any Opposition filed within fifteen days thereafter. Both the District and the Plaintiff filed the permitted briefs.

3. On February 27, 2024, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause which provided in part that IT IS ORDERED that respondent superior court show cause before this court, when the matter is ordered on calendar, why the relief requested in the Petition should not be granted.

4. The February 27, 2024 Order to Show Cause required Real party in interest to serve and file a return to the petition on or before March 28, 2024 and the reply to the return to be served and filed within fifteen (15) days of the filing of the return. No extensions of time for briefing are contemplated.

5. The February 27, 2024 Order to Show Cause provided in part that any requests for oral argument must be served and filed on or before March 8, 2024.

6. On March 7, 2024, both parties requested oral argument. Thereafter, Real Party in interest submitted a Return on March 28, 2024.

7. Multiple amicus briefs were submitted in support of Petitioner’s position by school districts and other Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) on April 11, 2024.

8. On April 12, 2024, Petitioner filed its Reply and the West Contra Costa USD matter was fully briefed and simply awaiting the requested oral argument.

9. On January 25, 2024, a public entity elementary school district designated as “Roe 2) in an AB 218 Complaint filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandate seeking to have the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Six compel the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County reverse its decision overruling a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings which had been filed predicated on the fact that AB 218 was an unlawful gift of public funds as applied to claims against public entities for childhood sexual abuse which had occurred prior to January 1, 2009.

10. On March 27, 2024, the Second District, Division Six requested an informal response to the writ to be filed on or before April 22, 2024 which addressed the question of whether the trial court had conflated the ‘public policy’ reasons motivating the legislative enactment of AB218 with the constitutional requirement that the appropriation of public funds serve a ‘public purpose’.

11. The March 27, 2024 Order of the Second District, Division Six requested an informal response to be filed on or before April 22, 2024 which addressed the question of whether the retroactive elimination of the claims presentation requirements for legally invalid claims serve a public purpose, i.e. does it benefit the state or does it solely benefit the private individual plaintiffs? In responding to this question, the Court directed the parties to consider the following authorities “Conlin v. Board of Supervisors (1893) 99 Cal. 17, 21-22 [“An appropriation of money by the legislature for the relief of one who has no legal claim therefor must be regarded as a ‘gift,’ within the meaning of that term, as used in [article XVI, section 6, of the California Constitution], and it is none the less a gift that a sufficient motive appears for its appropriation, if the motive does not rest upon a valid consideration”]; Orange County Foundation v. Irvine Co. (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 195, 201 [where state funds are expended in exchange for relinquishment of an invalid claim, no public purpose is achieved; such expenditure violates the gift clause]; County of Alameda v. Carleson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 730, 745-746 [the benefit to the state from an expenditure for a public purpose is in the nature of consideration and the funds expended are therefore not a gift even though private persons are benefited]; Civ. Code Section 1146 [“A gift is a transfer of personal property, made voluntarily, without consideration”].”

12. The March 27, 2024, Order of the Second District, Division Six provided that the school district could file an informal reply to the letter response on or before May 17, 2024.

The Court takes judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code Section 452 and 453. But, the Court takes judicial notice only as to the existence, content, and authenticity of such documents; it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted therein. (Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 389, 400.) 

LEGAL STANDARD

“Any party may file a motion for an order under Code of Civil Procedure section 404.5 staying the proceedings in any action being considered for, or affecting an action being considered for, coordination, or the court may stay the proceedings on its own motion.” (Cal. Rules Ct., Rule 3.515(a).)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 404.5, “Pending any determination of whether coordination is appropriate, the judge making that determination may stay any action being considered for, or affecting an action being considered for, coordination.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.5.)

DISCUSSION

            The District moves for an order staying the trial of this matter pending resolution of the Court of Appeals’ decision on two writs regarding the constitutionality of California Assembly Bill 218 (“AB 218”).  

In Caiafa Prof. Law Corp. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 800, the court held, [i]t is black letter law that, when a Federal action has been filed covering the same subject matter as is involved in a California action, the California court has the discretion but not the obligation to stay the state court action.” (Caiafa Prof. Law Corp. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 800, 804.) However, the court in California Dept. of Water Resources v. Powerex Corp. (E.D. Cal. 2009) 653 F.Supp.2d 1057, held “[w]here it is proposed that a pending proceeding be stayed, the competing interests which will be affected by the granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed. Among those competing interests are the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” (California Dept. of Water Resources v. Powerex Corp. (E.D. Cal. 2009) 653 F.Supp.2d 1057, 1063 [citing to Lockyer v. Mirant Corp. (9th Cir. 2005) 398 F.3d 1098, 1110)].)

            Here, the Court recognizes that two petitions for writ of mandate are currently pending before the First and Second District Appellate Courts in West Contra Costa USD v. Superior Court, Case No. A16934 (concerning decision to overrule demurrer predicated on unconstitutionality of AB 218) and Roe #2 v. Superior Court, Case No. B334707 (concerning decision to deny motion for judgment on the pleadings predicated on unconstitutionality of AB 218). While these two writs challenge the rulings of the trial courts in Contra Costa County and Santa Barbara County, respectively and not a judgment or order made by this Court, they do relate to the same issue as was raised in this Court, i.e., the constitutionality of AB 218 raised on the Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Nevertheless, the writ process is much quicker than that in the case of appeals, such that this Court anticipates that the Appellate Courts will rule relatively soon. In fact, the writ in the Contra Costa case has been fully briefed and awaits oral argument. (Def. RJN 8 – Ex. C.) Likewise, trial in the instant case is not until April 7 of next year (2025). If in fact no ruling is made by the Appellate Courts until closer to the trial date, or if the ruling of the Appellate Courts results in a Petition for Review in the California Supreme Court, then the Defendant may bring an ex parte application to continue the trial. 

CONCLUSION

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant La Canada Unified School District’s Motion to Stay the Trial is DENIED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:   July 31, 2024                                     ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court