Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00502, Date: 2024-06-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00502    Hearing Date: June 5, 2024    Dept: C

J.O v. DOE 1; J.R.R. v. DOE 1; J.B.R. v. DOE 1, et al.; L.G. v. DOE 1; R.S. v. DOE 1; F.B. v. DOE 1; H.B. v. DOE 1

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00502; 22NWCV00504; 22NWCV00505; 22NWCV00507; 22STCV19567; 22STCV19569; 23NWCV01964

HEARING: 6/5/24 @ 9:30 A.M.

#1,2,3,4,7,8,9

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant ABC Unified School District’s motion to stay action is DENIED. 

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

This is seven different child sexual assault cases against defendant ABC Unified School District. The events occurred from 1975 to 1980. Defendant moves to stay the action in all seven cases.

Legal Standard

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

Requests for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests judicial notice of various court filings and court orders in West Contra Costa USD v. Superior Court (Contra Costa County), First Appellate District, Case No. A169314, and Roe #2 v. Superior Court (Santa Barbara County), Second Appellate District, Case No. B334707.

A court may take judicial notice that certain documents were filed in prior litigation, or that certain factual findings were made, but generally may not take judicial notice of the contents of those filings, or of the factual findings themselves. (See, e.g., Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal. App.4th 471, 483-484.)

Thus, the Court takes judicial notice of the filing of the documents, but not their contents.

Stay

Defendant moves to stay the action pending resolution of two matters before the California Courts of Appeal regarding the constitutionality of AB 218, which enacted the version of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 under which Plaintiffs have brought suit. Defendant moves to stay under California Rule of Court, rule 3.515 and Caiafa Prof. Law Corp. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 800, 803-804.

But Defendant applied the incorrect law in this case. California Rule of Court, rule 3.515 applies when a party moves for an order under Code of Civil Procedure section 404.5 to stay the proceedings in any action being considered for, or affecting an action being considered for, coordination. Here, no party is trying to coordinate the cases. In addition, Caiafa Prof. Law Corp. v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 800 applies only when a party is moving to stay a state court action in favor of a federal court action between substantially identical parties affecting the same subject matter as the state case where the federal case has been filed nearly nine months before the action in the state court. That is not what is happening here.

However, as an exercise of its inherent powers, the Court adjudicates the merits of the motion. (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 967.)

Defendant argues that AB218 retroactively strips statutory governmental immunity from public entities and violates Article XVI, section 6 of the California Constitution, which prohibits gifts of public funds.  Defendant asserts it cannot engage in meaningful settlement negotiations while AB218’s constitutionality remains unresolved, so this Court should stay the actions against it to promote judicial economy.  Defendant opines that the Courts of Appeal “appear poised to imminently decide” their matters.  This Court determines that such a possibility is speculative.  There is always the possibility that the Courts of Appeal could issue conflicting rulings, or the California Supreme Court may decide to grant review.  The Court finds that judicial economy is best served by going forward with the litigation, and if Defendant is unable to engage in settlement discussions, the parties can proceed with discovery and motion work. 

Based on the above, the motions are DENIED.