Judge John J. Kralik, Case Number: 22AHCV01229, Date: 2024-07-19 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT. YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT. YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY. Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

Warning regarding electronic appearances: All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department B

Plaintiff Jane Roe (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she is a victim of childhood sexual assault committed against her while she was a pupil at Defendant Pasadena Unified School District’s (“PUSD”) Oak Knoll Elementary or Oak Knoll Montessori School and Focus Point Elementary or Focus Point Academy. Plaintiff alleges that in approximately 2004, when shew as about 8 years old, she was sexually assaulted and abused by her teacher Defendant Victor Martinez (“Martinez”) while she was in the 3^rd grade at Oak Knoll Elementary or Oak Knoll Montessori School. She alleges that from 2005 to 2007, at about ages 10 and 11, she was sexually assaulted and abused by Martinez while she was in the 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th grade at Focus Point Elementary or Focus Point Academy. Plaintiff alleges that upon information and belief, she reported her abuse to Defendant Kelly Montgomery (“Montgomery”), the schools’ employee, counselor, and staff therapist, but Montgomery and the schools did not report the abuse to authorities.

The second amended complaint (“SAC”), filed July 26, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) negligent supervision; (3) negligent hiring and/or retention; (4) negligent failure to warn, train, or education; (5) IIED; (6) sexual battery (Civil Code, § 1708.5); (7) sexual assault; (8) gender violence (Civil Code, § 52.4); (9) violation of Penal Code, § 288; (10) violation of Penal Code, § 647.6; and (11) violation of Civil Rights (Civil Code, §§ 51.7, 52, and 52.1).

PUSD request judicial notice of Items 1 to 10, which include court documents from West Contra Costa USD v. Superior Court (First District Case No. A16934); and Items 11 to 15, which include court documents in Roe #2 v. Superior Court (Second Appellate District, Div. 6, Case No. B334707). Both the West Contra Costa USD and Roe #2 case involve petitions for writ of mandate regarding a demurrer and motion for judgment on the pleadings, which dealt with the issue of whether AB 218 amounts to an unlawful gift of public funds as applied to claims against public entities for childhood sexual abuse that allegedly occurred before January 1, 2009.

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of 34 court orders in various cases. With the reply brief, PUSD objected to Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, arguing that the superior court cases are not certified for publication and cannot be noticed for the truth of the contentions.

The requests are granted to the extent that the Court will take judicial notice that the court documents and orders exist but will not take judicial notice of the truth of the matters asserted or the legal reasoning therein. (Evid. Code, § 452(d)). Under CRC Rule 8.1115(a), the Court can give no consideration to these rulings as precedent, which is the apparent reason they were the provided.

“Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.)

There are four factors for the Court to consider when exercising its discretion to impose a stay: “(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, 434.)

PUSD moves for a stay of the proceedings, arguing that the Appellate Court decisions have the potential to render this matter unactionable. PUSD argues that if the Appellate Courts determine that, to the extent AB 218, which was enacted in 2019, purports to retroactively strip statutory government immunity from public entities, it violates the California Constitution, Article XVI, section 6, which prohibits gifts of public funds, such that Plaintiff will not have a viable claim.

PUSD argues that there are 2 separate writs pending in the First and Second Appellate Districts regarding AB 218’s constitutionality. PUSD believes that decisions are imminent because: (1) the First Appellate District (in the West Contra County case, A169314) recently issued an OSC why the Court should not grant the relief requested by petitioner and responses were filed on June 3, 2024, such that the matter is fully briefed; and (2) the Second Appellate District (in the Roe #2 case, B334707) ordered the plaintiffs to submit briefing as to why the Court should not grant the relief requested by petitioner and briefing was completed on May 17, 2024. In the reply brief, PUSD states that the First Appellate District in the West Contra County case has scheduled a hearing on the writ for July 18, 2024 at 9;300 a.m. (Preciado Suppl. Decl., ¶3, Ex. J.) PUSD argues that this action should be stayed pending the resolution of one or both writs to promote judicial economy and protect the boards, as the appellate decisions will be binding on this Court.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that staying the case will delay her case and that Judge Margaret L. Oldendorf of the Pasadena Courthouse, Department P, already denied PUSD’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the constitutionality issue on January 31, 2024.[1] (The matter was thereafter reassigned to Judge Jared D. Moses in the Pasadena Courthouse, Department P, and then reassigned to this Department B in the Burbank Courthouse.) Plaintiff also argues that the underlying orders in both appellate cases were also ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and against the public entities regarding AB 218. Thus, Plaintiff argues that PUSD has not and cannot make a showing that it will likely succeed on the merits in the unrelated appeals and that it will be irreparably harmed absent a stay.

Here, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to impose a stay in the action. The school districts regularly make such arguments regarding the pending writs before this Court at demurrer and motion for judgment on the pleadings hearings, and the Court has declined to delay those cases and declines to do so in this case as well. Although PUSD argues that decisions from the Appellate Courts are potentially imminent, particularly in the West Contra County case as the writ was set for hearing on July 18, 2024, the timeframe for when the Appellate Court will issue a decision on the writ or whether review will be sought of the Appellate Court’s order are still speculative. This action does not only involve PUSD and Plaintiff, but also includes other Defendants Victor Martinez and Kelly Montgomery. Staying the action would further delay the parties’ ability to conduct discovery and depositions. As such, the Court finds that staying the case and delaying discovery further in this case where the events occurred nearly 17 to 20 years ago would prejudice the rights of Plaintiff and the other Defendants. Thus, the Court will allow this case to proceed and the parties may continue with discovery and motion practice.

Defendant Pasadena Unified School District’s motion for stay of the proceedings is denied.

[1] On January 31, 2024, Judge Olendorf granted in part and denied in part PUSD’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court denied the motion as to the 1st cause of action for negligence, the 2nd cause of action for negligent supervision, the 3rd cause of cause for negligent hiring, and the 4th cause of action for failure to warn; and the motion was granted with leave to amend as to the 11th cause of action for violation of Civil Rights.