Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 19STCV18424, Date: 2023-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV18424    Hearing Date: December 21, 2023    Dept: 30

JOSEPH ACUNA vs FRIENDLY INN INC., et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings is DENIED.  Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Background

On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff Joseph Acuna filed a complaint against Defendant Friendly Inn Inc., and Li Yuan T. Chen, alleging five causes of action for (1) battery; (2) negligence; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) fraudulent concealment; and (5) public nuisance, arising out of an alleged bedbug bite incident at Defendant’s premises.

On October 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed this motion for a stay of proceedings. On December 8, 2023, Defendants filed an opposition. No reply has been filed.

Legal Standard

The court’s power to stay proceedings derives from the court’s power to control its own processes and orders to ensure orderly administration of justice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128(a)(8); Bailey v. Fosca Oil Co. (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 813, 817-18.)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for a court order staying this action. Plaintiff argues there is good cause to stay this action because he is incarcerated.

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has been incarcerated since at least June 2021 and is not eligible for parole until October 2026. Now, over two years after he has been imprisoned, Plaintiff is attempting to stay the action due to being in prison. This action was filed in 2019. Defendants will be severely prejudiced if this matter is stayed for an undetermined amount of time, which will be, at a minimum, of three more years. Memories will fade and evidence will be lost. Further, the prison indicated they have a procedure for remote attendance at deposition. Presumably, Plaintiff could attend trial the same way. There is no reason to stay this matter due to his inability to be physically present in the court room. Moreover, Plaintiff’s remote deposition is set for March of 2024. Defendants argue they are entitled to proceed with this deposition and trial, with Plaintiff appearing via video conference technology.

The Court finds Plaintiff has not adequately demonstrated that he cannot meaningfully participate in this action while he is incarcerated. As it appears there are avenues within which Plaintiff can participate in this matter, as the deposition has been set up while he is incarcerated and the prison has a procedure for remote participation. Plaintiff can dress in a suit and the background can be modified so that jurors are unaware of his incarceration. Plaintiff has failed to show he cannot meaningfully participate in this action, especially when this action is still in the early stages of litigation. Plaintiff has thus failed to show good cause for staying this action.