Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 20STCV02032, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV02032    Hearing Date: April 17, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     April 17, 2023                        TRIAL DATE: May 16, 2023

CASE:                         HODA HASSAN vs COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND ITS DEPERTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

CASE NO.:                 20STCV02032           

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION APPEAL

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant County of Los Angeles

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Hoda Hassan

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for employment discrimination that was filed on January 16, 2020. Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to extensive discrimination over a period of more than 30 years based on her national origin, gender, age, and disability. Plaintiff pursued the same claims within the Civil Service Commission which denied her claim. Plaintiff then filed an appeal of the denial to the Civil Service Commission on April 7, 2021. The hearing on the appeal is pending.

Summary adjudication was granted against Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for disability discrimination.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s motion to stay proceedings pending Plaintiff’s administrative appeal is DENIED.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of the Minute Order with Ruling on Summary Judgment in the instant case is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of the Notice of Ruling re Minute Order Lifting Stay in Itani vs. COLA, 21STCV20102 is DENIED, as the Court finds consideration of the ruling to be unnecessary to the resolution of the motion before the Court.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant County of Los Angeles (Defendant) moves to stay the entire action during the pendency of a concurrent administrative proceeding, to wit, Plaintiff Hoda Hassan’s (Plaintiff) Civil Service Rule 25 appeal seeking a hearing from the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and relief from Defendant’s decision not to grant her promotion.   

            Public employees have the choice of forum to pursue discrimination claims but must “exhaust ‘the chosen administrative forum’s procedural requirements.” (Page v. Los Angeles County Probation Dept. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1142.) “Though a public employee may choose to bypass the administrative process, if she pursues it through evidentiary hearings to a proposed decision, then she has the burden to exhaust administrative and judicial remedies ….” (Id. at 1144 [Emphasis added].) “Under the doctrine of exhaustion of judicial remedies, ‘[o]nce a[n administrative] decision has been issued, provided that decision is of a sufficiently judicial character to support collateral estoppel, respect for the administrative decisionmaking process requires that the prospective plaintiff continue that process to completion, including exhausting any available judicial avenues for reversal of adverse findings.’” (Runyon v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2010) 48 Cal.4th 760, 773 [Emphasis added].)

            In this case, Plaintiff has filed an administrative appeal seeking a Civil Service hearing but has not yet pursued an evidentiary hearing to a decision, as is required for a finding that she is required to exhaust any judicial remedies to reverse any adverse findings.  (Defendant’s Exh. 2.)  In contrast to the employees in the cases cited by Defendant, Plaintiff has not had an evidentiary hearing and has not received any factual findings or other decision after an administrative decisionmaking process.  Thus, she is not bound to exhaust any judicial or other procedures to reverse an adverse administrative decision.  Should Plaintiff continue to pursue her Civil Service appeal through an evidentiary hearing and secure adverse findings on claims advanced in this lawsuit, she may need to reverse those findings before she can take this case to trial.  At present, however, she still retains the right to choose to litigate this action without any obligation to continue with her administrative appeal or to pursue her request for a Civil Service hearing.  If she chooses the former, no stay is appropriate.  If she selects the latter and obtains an adverse ruling through the Civil Service process, a stay may be available while Plaintiff exhausts her judicial challenge to that administrative ruling, but such a stay would be improper now. 

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to stay proceedings pending administrative appeal is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2023                                     ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.