Judge Kenneth J. Medel, Case Number: 37-2022-00014613-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2022-00014613-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2024-04-26 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 25, 2024

04/26/2024 09:30:00 AM C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Wrongful Termination Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00014613-CU-WT-CTL CHOI VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 04/02/2024

Defendant City of San Diego's Motion to Stay is GRANTED.

Preliminary Matters The general rule of motion practice is that new evidence is not considered on reply unless the evidence fills gaps created by the opposition. (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1538.) Given the evidence set forth in the reply declaration of Erin Kilcoyne (ROA 84) and the declaration of Christopher Saldana (ROA 87) do not fill gaps created by Plaintiff's opposition, the Court declines to consider them.

Given this determination, the Court need not address Plaintiff's objections to the reply declaration of Erin Kilcoyne. (ROA 86.) Background Plaintiff, a Fire Engineer with the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department, alleges violations of the California Fair Employment & Housing Act ('FEHA') and the Firefighters' Bill of Rights.

On August 4, 2020, Plaintiff received a Notice of Fact-Finding (NOFF) letter, indicating he was the subject of possible misconduct regarding a vehicle rescue that occurred on April 17, 2020. (ROA 87, FAC, �� 10, 12.) Plaintiff's NOFF interview was held on August 26, 2020, and, on January 5, 2021, Plaintiff received an Advance Notice of Termination. (Id. at �� 16, 17.) Plaintiff was actually terminated on April 29, 2021. (Id. at � 19.) Plaintiff alleges management-level employees of the Department harbor ill-will towards Plaintiff stemming from a prior lawsuit he filed against the City and, due to this motivation, have retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of FEHA in pursuing and imposing the discipline referenced above. (Id. at �� 7, 18, 24.) Before filing the instant action, Plaintiff filed an appeal of his termination with the San Diego Civil Service Commission ('CSC'). On May 10, 2022, the CSC held a hearing in In re Appellant Steve Choi. After learning about the civil complaint filed less than one month earlier (April 19, 2022), Plaintiff's CSC counsel requested a 120-day continuance of the CSC hearing. As a condition of the stay, Plaintiff agreed to not seek any sort of back wages for the time the CSC is stayed. Over the Appointing Authority's objection, the Commissioner granted Plaintiff's request to stay the CSC hearing. The CSC hearing has since been continued multiple times, and no hearing date is currently set.

The City moves to stay this action until resolution of Plaintiff's appeal before the CSC.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3101269 30 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: CHOI VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] 37-2022-00014613-CU-WT-CTL Discussion '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.) '[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.' (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 141.) A stay may be ordered 'to avoid a multiplicity of suits and prevent vexatious litigation, conflicting judgments, confusion and unseemly controversy between litigants and courts.' (Simmons v. Los. Angeles County Superior Court (1950) 96 Cal.App.2d 119, 125.) Here, a stay of the proceedings in this action is appropriate to accommodate the ends of justice. Staying the action is warranted as a practical matter and would be in the interest of judicial efficiency, as this action and the CSC hearing both involve similar facts and parties, and it is expected the CSC hearing will address, among other things, the termination of Plaintiff's employment. There is a significant economy of time and effort for the Court, the litigants, and the witnesses, if the parties litigate one proceeding at a time. Moreover, the Court has previously noted there is a risk to Plaintiff that a decision rendered by the Board may have a preclusive effect on Plaintiff's FEHA claim. (See ROA 70, p. 3.) Given these reasons, the Court need not address the City's arguments on the primary jurisdiction theory.

The Court disagrees with Plaintiff's argument the City's instant motion is an untimely motion for reconsideration of the Court's order overruling the City's demurrer, as the relief sought in this motion (a stay pending resolution of the CSC hearing) is different from the relief sought on demurrer (an attack on the causes of action in the FAC). Plaintiff's other arguments against the stay are unpersuasive.

Based on the foregoing, the City's motion to stay is granted. This action is stayed pending resolution of Plaintiff's appeal before the San Diego Civil Service Commission in In re Appellant Steve Choi.

The trial readiness conference scheduled for August 2, 2024, and the trial call scheduled for August 16, 2024 are vacated. The Court will hear from the parties whether to continue the motion and discovery dates.

A status conference will be set for August 16, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in this department.

Conclusion The minute order will be the final ruling of the Court. The City is ordered to serve written notice of ruling on all parties.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3101269 30