Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV00855, Date: 2024-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00855    Hearing Date: May 23, 2024    Dept: K

1.         The hearing on Defendant Pomona Unified School District’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is CONTINUED to July 19, 2024 at 9:30 a.m.

2.         Defendant Pomona Unified School District’s Motion to Stay the Trial and/or Proceedings is DENIED.

Background[1]  

Plaintiff Jane Doe 8 (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

Plaintiff is currently 46 years old. Plaintiff was the victim of childhood sexual assault, abuse and other misconduct by her high school coaches, Herman Hopson (“Hopson”) and Brian Crichlow (“Crichlow”).

On May 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against Pomona Unified School District (“PUSD”), Hopson, Crichlow and Does 4-60 for:

1.                  Sexual Abuse/Sexual Battery of a Minor

2.                  Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

3.                  Sexual Harassment

4.                  Negligent Hiring, Supervision & Retention of an Unfit Employee

5.                  Breach of Mandatory Duty: Failure to Report Suspected Child Abuse

6.                  Negligent Failure to Warn, Train or Educate

7.                  Negligent Supervision of a Minor

8.                  Negligence

On June 26, 2023, PUSD filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Crichlow, Hopson and Roes 1-50 for:

1.                  Total Equitable Indemnity

2.                  Partial Equitable Indemnity

3.                  Declaratory Relief

On February 13, 2024, Hopson’s default was entered on PUSD’s cross-complaint.

On May 7, 2024, Hopson’s default was entered on Plaintiff’s complaint.

A Case Management Conference is set for May 23, 2024.

1.         Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Legal Standard

The rules governing demurrers are generally applicable to a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4^th 995, 999; Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (d) [“The grounds for motion. . . shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. Where the motion is based on a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. . ., the matter shall be specified in the notice of motion, or in the supporting points and authorities, except as the court may otherwise permit”].)

A motion by a plaintiff may only be made on the grounds “that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).) A motion by a defendant may only be made on the grounds that (1) “[t]he court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint” or (2) “[t]he complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c).)

Although a nonstatutory motion “may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself” (Stoops v. Abbassi (2002) 100 Cal.App.4^th 644, 650 [quotation marks and citation omitted]), a statutory motion cannot be made after entry of a pretrial conference order or 30 days before the initial trial date, whichever is later, unless the court otherwise permits. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (e).)

Discussion

PUSD moves the court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 438, for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s complaint.

The court continues the hearing on the instant motion to July 19, 2024 at 9:30 a.m.

2. Motion to Stay

PUSD moves the court for an order granting a stay of the trial and/or proceedings of this matter pending resolution of the Court of Appeals’ decisions in two pending matters (i.e., West Contra Costa U.S.D. v. Superior Court, Case No. A16934 and Roe #2 v. Superior Court, Case No. B334707) regarding the constitutionality of California Assembly Bill 218 (“AB 218”), which enacted the version of Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1 that Plaintiff has brought this lawsuit under.

Request for Judicial Notice

The court rules grants PUSD’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) as to Exhibits C, F and G and denies same as to Exhibits A, B, D and E.

Merits

“The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (8 Cal.5^th 111, 141 [quotations and citation omitted].) However, “convenience of the courts is best served when motions to stay proceedings are discouraged. . . California courts are guided by the strong principle that any elapsed time other than that reasonable required for pleadings and discovery is unacceptable and should be eliminated.” (Alpha Media Resort Investment Cases (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1121, 1132 [internal quotations and citations omitted].)

The court does not believe that an open-ended stay is warranted. A petition for writ of mandate was filed December 18, 2023 in the First District Court of Appeal, in West Contra Costa Unified School District v. The Superior Court of Contra Costa County (Case No. A169314). (RJN, Exh. C.) RJN Exhibit C reflects the register of actions up through April 16, 2024 only. A review of the Court of Appeal’s online docket as of May 21, 2024, 9:21 a.m. reflects that there is a June 3, 2024 deadline for the parties to file any answer to amicus briefs. No date has been set for oral argument.

A petition for writ of mandate was filed January 25, 2024 in the Second District Court of Appeal, in Roe #2 v. Superior Court (Case No. B334707) (RJN, Exh. F); however, Plaintiff correctly notes that the court has only requested that the parties submit “informal” letters or briefing on the issue. (Id.) A reply “letter” was filed May 17, 2024. (Id.) Upon review of the informal letters, the court may decline to accept review. Further, in the event the court accepts review, the parties would need to submit formal briefing and conduct oral argument. The court also notes that the underlying proceedings in that case are not even stayed, as evidenced by an application for stay of superior court proceedings filed May 17, 2024 in Case No. B334707. The motion is denied.