Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 24NNCV01989, Date: 2024-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV01989    Hearing Date: August 15, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

         Jane Does, B.U. and S.V., (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Montebello Unified School District (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 10 on May 31, 2024, Plaintiffs allege that they were groomed, sexually assaulted, and sexually molested by a teacher employed by Defendant in or around 2004 and 2005.

On July 8, 2024, Defendant filed a demurrer on the grounds that Plaintiffs did not present a timely pre-litigation claim and the Legislature’s retroactive elimination of the claim presentation element through AB 218 is unconstitutional and violates Article XVI, § 6 (referred to as the “Gift Clause”).

On July 15, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for an order staying this action until the resolution of two petitions for a writ of mandate pending before the Court of Appeal in West Contra Costa USD v. Superior Court (First District Case No. A16934) (“West Contra Costa”) and Roe #2 v. Superior Court (Second Appellate District, Div. 6, Case No. B334707) (“Roe #2”), respectively. Both cases involve the question of whether AB 218 violates the Gift Clause of the California Constitution and address a dispositive issue directly underpinning this current litigation. Defendant and Plaintiff both filed requests for judicial notice court of records. The requests are GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 352, subd. (d).)

“[T]he 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 (2019) 8 Cal.5^th 111, 141 [citing Landis v. North American Co. (1936) 299 U.S. 248, 254].) “[A] stay gives effect to the general rule that a court ordinarily has inherent power, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice.” (People v. Bell (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 323.)  

On July 31, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal issued its opinion in West Contra Costa and held that AB 218 did not violate the Gift Clause because it did not create new substantive liability for the alleged wrongful conduct, but only waived a condition that the state had imposed on its consent to suit. Therefore, one of the two writ proceedings has already concluded.

As for the status of the proceedings in Roe #2, the Second District Court of Appeal ordered the real parties in interest to file an “informal response” in letter form by April 22, 2024, and for the petitioner school district to file an “informal reply” by May 17, 2024. The Court of Appeal also issued a stay order on June 26, 2024, at the petitioner’s request, staying trial proceedings in the superior court pending resolution of the writ petition. Given the “informal” briefing schedule, it is likely that a ruling will be issued soon. 

Decisions of every division of the Court of Appeals are binding on this court and where appellate decisions are in conflict, “the court exercising inferior jurisdiction can and must make a choice between the conflicting decisions.” (Auto Equity Sales v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455-456.) While the First Appellate District has issued its ruling in West Contra Costa rejecting the argument about the unconstitutionality of AB 218, if the Second Appellate District issues a conflicting ruling, this court would have the benefit of the Second Appellate District’s reasoning and have the discretion to choose between the two. The Court additionally notes that this case was only recently filed on March 31, 2024, and that a brief stay is unlikely to prejudice either party, given that the alleged abuse occurred around 20 years ago.

Accordingly, the Court enters an order staying the action. The stay will expire at the end of three months or the day the Second District Court of Appeal issues its ruling in Roe #2, whichever occurs earlier. The case management conference scheduled for November 15, 2024, remains on calendar, as does Defendant’s demurrer.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 15th day of August, 2024

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.