Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV16617, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV16617    Hearing Date: February 17, 2023    Dept: 55

FRANCISCO v. CITY OF COMPTON                                                     20STCV16617

Hearing Date:  2/17/23,  Dept. 55

#10:   MOTION FOR STAY.

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

MP:  Plaintiff

RP:  Defendants

Summary

On 5/1/20, Plaintiff CELIA FRANCISCO, a self-represented, attorney litigant, filed this action.

On 4/22/21, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint against the CITY OF COMPTON, alleging that, when Defendant CRAIG CORNWELL became the Chief Deputy City Attorney in 2006, Plaintiff’s performance while working as a Deputy City Attorney became falsely and unfairly handled based on the pretext of poor work performance, leading to years of retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaints, harassment (e.g., yelling, defamation, ridicule, bias against Plaintiff, and profanity), criticisms of Plaintiff’s childcare needs, disproportionate assignments and disciplines, wrongful termination and reinstatement, grievance procedures, interference with a Skelly Hearing when the Chief Deputy advised the officer to not consider the Plaintiff’s Skelly Response, another termination (on 10/4/10), Workers Comp., medical/stress leave, management disposing of some of her personal property, representation by an AFSCME representative, conversion of Plaintiff’s binders of legal documents, a delayed administrative appeal, Plaintiff’s notice of arbitration per union agreement (on 6/13/18), and Plaintiff’s Public Records Act request. 

Much of the pleading consists of unusually detailed employment background information, whereas the gravamen of the theories pursued narrowly are management destroying binders of legal documents, and civil rights violations including interference with a Skelly Hearing.

The causes of action are:

1. CONVERSION (Civil Code §3335; §3355) in violation of Govt. Code 34090

2. RETURN OF PERSONAL PROPERTY

3. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

4. FAILURE TO TRAIN (42 U.S.C. §1983)

5. VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (SKELLEY) VIOLATION (42 U.S.C. 1983)

6. VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS; UNDUE DELAY; (42 U.S.C. 1983).

On 1/5/23, Summary Judgment was filed for defendants.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order an order staying this action, on bases including the following:

·         Various issues need to be resolved prior to the entry of the final Judgment in this case. 

·         Plaintiff is opposing the [Proposed] Judgment served by Defendants on December 14, 2022 on the basis of requested costs.

·         Plaintiff opposes and objects to the manner in which Defendants Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment was entered on September 19, 2022, in  violation of California Rule of Court 3 Cal. Rul. Ct. 3.1590(j).

·         Plaintiff has reason to believe that certain documents filed on the courts website have been compromised and, hence, will be filing a request for an investigation into this matter with the Courts.

RP Positions

Opposing parties advocate denying the motion, for reasons including the following:

·         The only document Plaintiff served was a half-page Notice of Motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.515(b); Rule 3.1113(a) (requiring supporting memorandum for motions).)

·         No basis for a stay is stated.

·         It is unclear how a stay would help Plaintiff at this point.

Tentative Ruling

The motion is denied.

The stated factual reasons are moot, after the filing of Judgment.

There are no points and authorities addressed in the filed document. 

Decisions to invoke California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113 (requiring that a motion have a memorandum with “a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced…”), are reviewed under the abuse-of- discretion standard.  Quantum Cooking Concepts, Inc. v. LV Associates, Inc.  (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 927, 932.  Unless otherwise provided, papers filed in support of a motion must consist of a notice and a memorandum in support.  CRC Rule 3.1112.  “Contentions are waived when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority.”  Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4th 1210, 1215.  A judge in a civil case is not "'obligated to seek out theories [a party] might have advanced, or to articulate … that which … [a party] has left unspoken.'"  Mesecher v. County of San Diego (1992) 9 Cal. App. 4th 1677, 1686.  The failure to file a memorandum supporting a motion may be construed as an admission of an absence of merit.  CRC Rule 3.1113(a).

“[W]hether a matter is 'embraced' in or 'affected' by a judgment within the meaning of section 916 depends upon whether postjudgment trial court proceedings on the particular matter would have any impact on the 'effectiveness' of the appeal. If so, the proceedings are stayed….”  Franklin & Franklin v. 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising (2000) 85 Cal. App. 4th 1168, 1173 (citing CCP §916).  Accord  Young v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 35, 51  (“ ‘In determining whether a proceeding is embraced in or affected by the appeal, we must consider the appeal and its possible outcomes in relation to the proceeding and its possible results.’ ”);  Henry M. Lee Law Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1383 (changing attorney fee award to make it payable to another would have no impact on the effectiveness of the appeal);  City of Santa Monica v. Stewart (2005) 126 Cal. App. 4th 43, 79.