Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCV07550, Date: 2022-10-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV07550    Hearing Date: October 19, 2022    Dept: 39

Nicole Campos v. LAUSD

Case No. 20STCV07550

Order #1 of 2

Order re: Five-Year Date

            Plaintiff Nicole Campos (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action against the Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”).  Plaintiff alleges that because of her age and disability, and in retaliation for her complaints to the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (the “EEOC”), Defendant engaged in a course of conduct that collectively created intolerable working conditions.  In her complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant had provided certain information to the EEOC, and that her co-workers defamed her by reporting that she had committed abuse.  The court denied the motion to the extent Defendant sought to have the entire complaint dismissed.  Defendant appealed the Court’s decision to deny the motion in part, and the District Court of Appeal affirmed.  The remittitur issued on August 26, 2022, and the Court lifts the stay, effective October 19, 2022.    

            Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310, an action shall be brought to trial within five years.  However, for purposes of computing this time, the Court excludes all time for which “[b]ringing the action to trial . . . was impossible, impracticable, or futile.”  (Code Civ. Proc. s 583.340(c).) 

Beginning on March 16, 2020, civil jury trials were suspended in the Los Angeles County Superior Court due to COVID-19.  Pursuant to the Presiding Judge’s order of July 10, 2020, civil jury trials would resume on the first court day in January 2021, which is January 4, 2021.  Therefore, this time period—March 16, 2020 to January 4, 2021—is 294 days.

Although the Court reopened for jury trials on January 4, 2021, Department #39 still was unable to proceed with jury trials due to the pandemic.  Specifically, Department #39 could not hold trials in the courtroom due to the requirements of social distancing and the number of attorneys and parties involved in a case of this nature, as well as the difficulty in summoning sufficient jurors for jury selection.  These conditions existed until May 11, 2021.  This time period—January 4, 2021, to May 11, 2021—is 127 days.

Defendant filed a notice of appeal on November 25, 2020.  This notice of appeal automatically stayed the case.  (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 190-191.)  Then, on August 18, 2021, the Court issued a stay, which is lifted effective October 19, 2022.  This time period—August 25, 2020 to October 19, 2022—is 693 days.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that a total of 1,114 days shall not be counted against the time that this case must be brought to trial.  This case was filed on February 24, 2020.  Under normal circumstances, the case would need to proceed to trial on or before February 24, 2025.  However, based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the deadline for this case to proceed to trial is March 14, 2028. 

The Court posted this tentative order in advance of the hearing.  If the parties waive notice and a further opportunity to be heard, the Court will issue this order.  If the parties request an opportunity to respond in writing, the Court will set an Order to Show Cause hearing for a future date. 

Order #2 of 2

Motion for Sanctions

            Plaintiff Nicole Campos (“Plaintiff”) filed this employment action against the Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”).  Now, Defendant moves for sanctions, including dismissal, under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7, which requires an attorney to sign all pleadings, petitions, notices of motions and other similar papers.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (a).)  By the signature, the attorney certifies that the “legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (b)(2).)  If the court determines that an attorney has violated this requirement, the court may impose sanctions against the attorney.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (c).)

Defendant’s motion is based on allegations in the complaint.  (See Notice of Motion for Sanctions, p. 2.)  However, Plaintiff “did not sign or file the offending complaint.”  (Primo Hospitality Group, Inc. v. Haney (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 165, 175.)  Plaintiff’s former attorney of record, Brian D. McMahon, filed and signed the complaint.  As such, the Court cannot impose sanctions against Plaintiff or current counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 based on the filing of the complaint. 

            Regardless, the Court is not certain that the conduct is sanctionable.  Plaintiff alleged in a petition for a writ of mandate that she has been on a leave of absence since 2018.  Plaintiff alleges that she was constructively discharged in 2018.  The two are not necessarily distinct. 

            Based upon the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for sanctions is denied.  This order is without prejudice to Defendant re-filing the motion and noticing it for the same date/time as any hearing on a motion for summary judgment.  The Court is willing to revisit this issue when it is considering whether Plaintiff has sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. 

            Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.