Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 25STCP01796, Date: 2025-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCP01796    Hearing Date: May 23, 2025    Dept: 82

Lawrence Pleasant v. Steve Gordon, Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles

Case No. 25STCP01796

Order Granting Petitioner’s Ex Parte Application

to Stay Driving Suspension Pending Trial

            Petitioner Lawrence Pleasant (“Petitioner”) was involved in a traffic collision on December 19, 2024.  (Petition for Writ of Mandate (“Pet.”) ¶ 4.)  Petitioner submitted to a blood test to determine his blood alcohol content.  (Pet. ¶¶ 5, 19.)  The Department of Motor Vehicles (the “DMV”) imposed a suspension of Petitioner’s driving privileges but stayed the suspension.  (Hammond Decl. Exh. C.)  Petitioner finally received the blood results on April 15, 2025.  (Pet. ¶ 19.)  The results showed that Petitioner had a blood alcohol content of 0.09 percent.  (Hammond Decl. Exh. C.) 

            On April 18, 2025, the Department of Motor Vehicles (the “DMV”) held an administrative hearing regarding suspension of Petitioner’s driver’s license.  (Pet. ¶ 20.)  Following the hearing, the DMV lifted the stay and re-imposed the suspension.  (Hammond Decl. Exh. C.)  Now, Petitioner seeks to stay the suspension of his driving privileges until the court decides the petition for writ of mandate.

            Petitioner’s counsel provided notice to the DMV and submitted a declaration signed under penalty of perjury.  According to Petitioner’s counsel’s assistant, an employee of the Legal Affairs Division of the DMV stated that she “was going to review the petitioner’s driving record to decide if they would oppose the stay.”  (Montgomery Decl. ¶ 4.)  The employee then emailed Petitioner’s counsel’s assistant to inform her that an attorney from the DMV would not appear to oppose the ex parte application.  (Ibid.)  In fact, counsel for the DMV did not appear at the hearing to oppose the application.  Nor did the DMV file an opposition to this application.   

            The court may impose a stay unless doing so would be against the public interest.  (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5.)  In the instant case, the DMV has elected not to oppose this ex parte application, effectively stipulating to the same relief it granted since December 19, 2024.  Because the DMV has not opposed this ex parte application, the court has no choice but to issue the stay requested by Petitioner.  Petitioner advances evidence that he has a “clean” driving record, and the DMV does not rebut that showing.  (See Hammond Decl. Exh. D.)  Nor has the DMV advanced any evidence to show that Petitioner constitutes a danger to public safety.  To the contrary, the DMV has been allowing Petitioner to drive, which suggests the DMV does not consider Petitioner to constitute a danger to public safety.    

Based upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows:

1.         The court grants Petitioner’s ex parte application to stay the suspension of his driving privileges pending trial in this matter. 

2.         Petitioner’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of service with the court.