Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 19STCV03192, Date: 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 19STCV03192 Hearing Date: January 6, 2023 Dept: A
19STCV03192
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
DENYING MOTION FOR A STAY BY DEFENDANT, LINCOLN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.
I.
BACKGROUND
The Second Amended Complaint
(“SAC”) alleges that on December 14, 2018, Plaintiff was struck by a truck
driven by Defendant, Antonio Uribe Caracheo (“Caracheo”), who was driving with the
permission and consent of Lincoln Transportation Services, Inc. (“Lincoln”). At
the time of the incident, Defendant, Kevin Raul Grande (“Grande”), was parked
on the street in his commercial truck owned by Defendant, Silva’s Transport
Express, Inc. (“Silva”) and speaking to Plaintiff about delivering his cargo to
Plaintiff’s place of employment, West Coast Warehousing (“West Coast”). Grande
allegedly failed to warn Plaintiff of Caracheo’s oncoming truck. Plaintiff
alleges claims for negligence and negligent entrustment against Caracheo,
Lincoln, Grande and Silva.
On November 12, 2019, Lincoln filed
a cross-complaint against Silva and West Coast for indemnity, contribution, and
declaratory relief. On September 15, 2022, the court granted the motions for
summary judgment filed by Defendants, Grande and Silva, leaving Lincoln as the
remaining Defendant.
II.
ARGUMENTS
A.
Motion filed November 30, 2022
Lincoln asks for a stay of the
entire case while it appeals the court’s ruling granting the Motion for Summary
Judgment in favor of Grande and Silva (“Grande/Silva”) on the complaint and on
Lincoln’s cross-complaint. Lincoln
contends that it will suffer prejudice if it is forced to go to trial prior to
the resolution of its appeal as it will be precluded from attributing fault to Silva,
who played a significant role in the events leading up to the incident. Lincoln
will not be able to place Silva on the verdict form and will not be able to
discover evidence in support of its dismissed contribution claim absent a stay.
Lincoln contends the trial court is divested of subject matter jurisdiction
over any matter “embraced in or affected by” the appeal.
B.
Opposition filed December 16,
2022.
Plaintiff
argues Lincoln is not entitled to a stay as set forth in Code Civ. Proc.,
section 437c (l). The statute contemplates this situation. The case is four
years old, and Plaintiff is prepared to go to trial on January 25, 2023 as
currently scheduled. A stay will further delay disposition of the case. If
Lincoln is successful on appeal, Lincoln can pursue their indemnity rights. The
trial against Lincoln, whose vehicle ultimately struck Plaintiff, does not
affect Lincoln’s appeal which addresses whether Grande/Silva owed Plaintiff a
duty of care.
C.
Reply filed December 19, 2022.
Lincoln
argues a stay is required precisely because the relevant statute precludes
Lincoln from attributing fault to Grande/Silva at trial. This would render the
pending appeal futile. Lincoln’s primary defense is that Grande/Silva illegally
stopped its vehicle in the middle of the street and summoned Plaintiff to walk
into the street, where Lincoln’s vehicle struck Plaintiff.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Except as otherwise provided, "the
perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment
or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected
thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court
may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by
the judgment or order." Code Civ. Proc., § 916. The
determination of whether a matter is “embraced” in or “affected” by a judgment
within the meaning of the statute 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; if not, the
proceedings are permitted. (Ibid.)" Elsea v. Saberi (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 625, 629. The rule prevents the trial court from rendering the appeal
futile by “altering the appealed judgment or order by conducting other
proceedings that may affect it.” Id. The trial court proceeding must
directly or indirectly seek to “enforce, vacate or modify [the] appealed
judgment or order." Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th
180, 189. Or the trial court proceeding
must “substantially interfere” with the appellate court’s ability to conduct
the appeal. Id.
IV.
DISCUSSION
The court grants Plaintiff’s
request for judicial notice of the court’s ruling issued on September 15, 2022.
Plaintiff’s RJN, Ex. 1; Evid. Code, § 452(d). The court ruled in favor of Grande/Silva,
whose truck was stopped in the middle of the road, finding that Plaintiff
failed to establish that Grande/Silva owed Plaintiff a duty to deactivate the
vehicle’s headlights or that a special relationship existed between Plaintiff
and Grande/Silva from which a duty arose.
Lincoln has not established that the
trial against it, which will determine Lincoln’s duty to Plaintiff and
liability therefor will render its appeal futile. Lincoln’s appeal concerns
whether or not Grande/Silva owed Plaintiff a duty for the same incident while
being stopped in the middle of the street. Trial will determine Lincoln’s
liability for the same accident based on its own alleged duty to Plaintiff, a
pedestrian who was in the middle of the street. RJN, Ex. 1.
As both parties observe, the
effect of the court’s order granting Grande/Silva’s motion will preclude
Lincoln from attempting to attribute fault or comment on the “absence or involvement
of the defendant who was granted the motion." Code Civ. Proc., § 437c. Lincoln’s
purported prejudice at trial is not a basis for issuing a stay. The trial
court’s determination of Lincoln’s duty to Plaintiff will not “substantially
interfere” with the appellate court’s determination of a separate duty
allegedly owed by Grande/Silva to Plaintiff.
V.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Lincoln’s
motion for a stay is DENIED.