Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 19LBCP00356, Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19LBCP00356    Hearing Date: August 11, 2022    Dept: S27

The Court was originally scheduled to hear this motion on 8/03/22.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court determined the case must be stayed as to the Stacy’s defendants, and ordered the parties to further brief the issue of whether the stay should be of the entire case or whether only the case against the Stacy’s defendants should be stayed, with the remainder of the case going to trial as currently scheduled.  The Court ordered any briefs requesting a full stay of the action be filed on or before 8/05/22, and any responsive briefs by filed on or before 8/09/22. 

On 8/05/22, AVCC and VCC filed briefs in support of the position that the entire case should be stayed, not just the case against Stacy’s.  As of 8/10/22, the Court has not received any response setting forth the contrary position.

The crux of the briefs filed is three-fold.  First, AVCC and VCC contend they cannot defend themselves in the case filed by Plaintiff unless they can examine Sanchez, as their liability to Plaintiff, if any, flows through Stacy’s.  Second, they contend they have a cross-complaint against the Sanchez defendants, and it is not clear how that cross-complaint would be handled in the event of a partial stay.  Third, they note that the allegedly injured party is deceased, and therefore there is no prejudice to the plaintiff as a result of a complete stay of the case.

The Court has reviewed the case, and finds AVCC/VCC’s position is well-taken in all regards.  The liability of all of the defendants is tied together, such that the case cannot be meaningfully tried against one defendant without trying it against all defendants.  Additionally, AVCC/VCC could find themselves, at the conclusion of the trial, in a position where there is a judgment against them, but they are not able to proceed on their cross-complaint against Stacy’s; as a practical matter, this could leave them owing money to Plaintiff that, in turn, Stacy’s should be ordered to pay to them, which could potentially result in them being unable to ever collect against Stacy’s, as it is not clear what Stacy’s financial future holds. 

Third, and most importantly, the Court notes that the actual injured person in this case is deceased.  The Court has previously expressed concerns about the fact that the case has been pending since 10/02/19.  However, the plaintiff in this case does not allege he was actually injured.  He is suing as the successor-in-interest to his brother.  While the Court has an independent interest in moving cases forward, that interest in this case must be balanced against the right of Stacy’s to defend itself, as well as the rights of AVCC/VCC to defend themselves and to point any fingers at Stacy’s that they may need to point.  Because Plaintiff, himself, was not injured, the Court finds any delay in resolving this case does not come with the same level of prejudice that would exist if there were a person waiting for redress of his own injuries prosecuting the case. 

In conclusion, the Court finds the entire case must be stayed pending resolution of any criminal proceedings against the Stacy’s defendants and/or expiration of the statute of limitations.  The Court sets an OSC re: status of any criminal proceedings for six months from today, on Friday, 2/10/23 at 8:30 a.m. in Department S27 of the Long Beach Courthouse.  If the parties agree that the stay must continue at that time, they should file a stipulation to continue the OSC at least one week prior to the OSC; the stipulation must include a continued hearing date that the parties anticipate will be a date on which the stay can be lifted.

Stacy’s is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If any party does not submit on the tentative, the party should make arrangements to appear remotely at the hearing on this matter.