Preview
1 ERIN E. HOLBROOK, Chief Counsel
ALAN M. STEINBERG, Deputy Chief Counsel
2 HEIDI A. SKINNER, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel E-FILED
W. CHRISTOPHER SIMS, Bar No. 276969 11/2/2020 11:11 AM
3 PHILLIP S.O. COONLEY, Bar No. 166745 Superior Court of California
1120 N Street (MS 57), P.O. Box 1438 County of Fresno
4 Sacramento, CA 95812-1438 By: J. Nelson, Deputy
Telephone: (916) 654-2630
5 Facsimile: (916) 654-6128 (NO FEE PURSUANT TO GOV’T CODE, § 6103)
6 Attorneys for Defendant
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF FRESNO
10 THEODORE B. MOORADIAN, ) Case No.: 19CECG03115
)
11 Plaintiff, ) Related Case: Fresno Superior Court
) Case No. 20CECG01299
12 vs. )
) DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA
13 STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE ) DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, a State ) TRANSPORTATION’S MEMORANDUM
14 Public Entity, CALIFORNIA ) OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ) SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STAY
15 dba CALTRANS, a State Public Entity and ) ACTION PENDING RESOLUTION OF
DOES 1 through 15, inclusive, ) RELATED PETITION FOR WRIT OF
16 ) ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE
Defendants. )
17 ) Date: December 1, 2020
) Time: 3:30 p.m.
18 ) Dept.: 403
)
19 ) Assigned to Hon. Kristi Culver Kapetan
)
20 ) Complaint Filed: August 26, 2019
) Trial Date: February 22, 2021
21 )
22 Defendant CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION (“Caltrans”),
23 erroneously sued as CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, dba CALTRANS, a
24 State Public Entity, respectfully submits the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities
25 supporting its Motion to Stay Action Pending Resolution of Related Petition for Writ of
26 Administrative Mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a) (3) and
27 (8).
28
-1-
DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 This case is before the Court because Plaintiff Theodore Mooradian is trying to avoid his
3 demotion from a Senior Transportation Engineer to a Transportation Engineer, which was the
4 penalty for Mooradian’s workplace misconduct. Because the alleged theories and damages
5 substantially overlap with those claimed by Mooradian in another case he brought against Caltrans in
6 this court regarding his demotion, Caltrans requests this action be stayed pending resolution of the
7 other case to avoid conflicting rulings and maximize judicial economy.
8 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
9 Mooradian began working for Caltrans in 1991. Ten years later he was promoted to the
10 Senior Transportation Engineer classification. Due to Mooradian’s dishonesty, willful disobedience,
11 and other causes, Caltrans served Mooradian with an adverse action demoting him from Senior
12 Transportation Engineer to Transportation Engineer, effective May 15, 2019. (RJN 1, Ex. 1.) A
13 month later, Mooradian filed an appeal of the adverse action with the State Personnel Board (SPB).
14 Mooradian’s appeal argued that he engaged in conduct protected by the Fair Employment and
15 Housing Act (FEHA) and was denied a Skelly 2 hearing. (RJN, Ex. 2.)
16 While the SPB appeal was pending, Mooradian filed the instant action against Caltrans
17 alleging that his demotion was motivated by age discrimination and that Caltrans violated his due
18 process right by not providing him with a Skelly hearing before the effective date of his demotion.
19 (Complaint (RJN, Ex. 3), ¶¶ 15, 24.) Mooradian later filed a First Amended Complaint with the
20 same allegations. (FAC 3 (RJN, Ex. 4), ¶¶ 15, 24.)
21 SPB issued its decision upholding Mooradian’s demotion on January 16, 2020. (RJN, Ex. 5.)
22 Mooradian challenged that decision by filing a petition for writ of administrative mandate, Theodore
23 B. Mooradian v. State of California Department of Transportation, et al., Fresno Superior Court
24 Case No. 20CECG01299. (RJN, Ex. 6.) In the Petition, Mooradian challenges the SPB’s decision
25
26 1
“RJN” refers to Caltrans’ Request for Judicial Notice filed concurrently with this motion.
2
27 See Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194 [providing for a pre-discipline hearing with the hiring
authority].
28 3
“FAC” refers to the First Amended Complaint. -2-
DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
1 finding no Skelly error and the evidence upholding the demotion. (Petition (RJN, Ex. 6), at pp. 13-
2 14.) The trial court has not ruled on the Petition.
3 It should be noted that Mooradian sought to invalidate his demotion based upon an alleged
4 violation of his due process rights as he contends he was unlawfully denied a Skelly hearing. In his
5 Complaint and FAC, Mooradian brings an identical claim for denial of due process again alleging
6 that he was unlawfully denied a Skelly hearing.
7 Because the issues involved in this case overlap with the issues in writ petition and the
8 standards of review are different, Caltrans requests this Court to stay this action pending resolution
9 of the writ petition to avoid conflicting rulings and maximize judicial economy.
10 Good cause exists for this Stay because trial is set for February 22, 2021, and the current date
11 set to hear two motions relating to the writ and set the briefing schedule is December 22, 2020.
12 Having these two cases on a dual track presents the strong opportunity for inconsistent rulings, and
13 judicial economy favors resolution of the concurrently pending mandamus proceeding before this
14 one since the outcome of that case will likely affect the outcome here. Moreover, the California
15 Constitution provides that the State Personnel Board is the body that reviews public employee
16 disciplinary decisions. (See Cal. Const., Art. VII, § 3(a).) The facts presented by this application
17 plainly favor staying this case and the Court should exercise its inherent power to do so.
18 III. ARGUMENT
19 A. The Court Should Stay the Action
20 The Court has the inherent power to “provide for the orderly conduct of the proceedings
21 before it” and “[t]o amend and control its processes . . . so as to make them conform to law and
22 justice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a) (3), (8).) The Court may stay a case in its entirety in the
23 interest of justice. (See Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 18 Cal.4th
24 739, 758 [“The case management tools available to trial courts [include] the inherent authority to
25 stay an action when appropriate”]; see also Landis v. North American Co. (1936) 299 U.S. 248, 254
26 (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the
27 disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and
28 for litigants.”)
-3-
DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
1 The facts presented in both pending actions are substantially the same. Plaintiff began
2 working for Caltrans in 1991 and ten years later he was promoted to the Senior Transportation
3 Engineer classification. Due to dishonesty, willful disobedience, and other causes, Caltrans served
4 Plaintiff with an adverse action demoting him from Senior Transportation Engineer to
5 Transportation Engineer effective May 15, 2019. (Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Ex. 1.)
6 Plaintiff then appealed the adverse action to the State Personnel Board (SPB), arguing he was
7 improperly demoted and denied a Skelly 4 hearing. (RJN, Ex. 2.)
8 While the SPB appeal was pending, Plaintiff filed this action against Caltrans alleging that
9 his demotion was motivated by age discrimination and that Caltrans violated his due process right by
10 not providing him with a Skelly hearing before the effective date of his demotion. (Complaint (RJN,
11 Ex. 3), ¶¶ 15, 24.) He then filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) with the same allegations.
12 (RJN, Ex. 4), ¶¶ 15, 24.)
13 SPB issued its decision upholding the demotion on January 16, 2020. (RJN, Ex. 5.) Plaintiff
14 challenged that decision by filing a petition for writ of administrative mandate (Theodore B.
15 Mooradian v. State of California Department of Transportation, et al., Fresno Superior Court Case
16 No. 20CECG01299 (“Writ”).) (RJN, Ex. 6.) In that action, he challenges the SPB’s decision finding
17 no Skelly error and the evidence upholding the demotion. (Petition (RJN, Ex. 6), at pp. 13-14.)
18 Judge Gaab has not ruled on the Writ and the next hearing is on December 22, 2020, when the court
19 is scheduled to set a briefing schedule, as well as hear Defendant’s Motion to Strike and Plaintiff’s
20 Motion to Augment.
21 By moving the case in this Court forward without a final decision in the administrative
22 proceedings, there is a risk of conflicting decisions and Caltrans will be required to expend
23 substantial resources litigating both actions at once. For example, the court hearing the writ may
24 determine that Plaintiff’s demotion was legally and procedurally proper, but the judge or jury in this
25 action could conclude that it was not. The potential for conflicting rulings is sufficient cause to stay
26
27
4
28 See Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194 [providing for a pre-discipline hearing with the hiring
authority]. -4-
DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
1 this case, and two trial courts reviewing substantially the same issues simultaneously unnecessarily
2 wastes the Court’s extremely limited time and resources.
3 Pacific Bell v. Superior Court (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 137 (Pacific Bell) is on point and
4 illustrates why the case should be stayed. In Pacific Bell, the plaintiff, Sable Communications of
5 California, Inc. (Sable), was a member of a joint venture with Pacific Bell, a utility regulated by the
6 California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). (Id. at pp. 138-139.) Sable sued Pacific Bell
7 alleging that Pacific Bell did not adequately pay Sable amounts due, which were calculated by a
8 telephone company tariff. (Id. at p. 139.) Around the same time the lawsuit was filed, the CPUC
9 began an investigation of the type of service provided by the joint venture and another company in a
10 similar joint venture with Pacific Bell filed a complaint with the CPUC against Pacific Bell alleging
11 underpayment. (Ibid.) A CPUC administrative law judge ordered consolidation of the CPUC
12 investigation and any other administrative complaints against Pacific Bell. (Ibid.)
13 Pacific Bell moved for a stay of Sable’s trial court action pending completion of the CPUC’s
14 investigation, which the trial court denied. (Id. at pp. 139-140.) The Court of Appeal concluded that
15 the court abused its discretion and issued a peremptory writ. (Id. at pp. 140-141.) The Court of
16 Appeal reasoned that a stay would “serve several salutary purposes”, such as “minimiz[ing] the risk
17 that the court’s rulings will hinder or frustrate the agency’s policies, orders, or decisions,” and
18 conserving judicial resources “which would otherwise be consumed in litigation of some issues
19 which will likely be resolved by administrative action.” (Id. at p. 140.)
20 Further, the Court should stay this action pending resolution of the petition for writ of
21 administrative mandate because a final decision regarding the propriety of Plaintiff’s demotion is a
22 prerequisite for him to pursue his claims in this case. For Plaintiff to challenge the SPB’s decision
23 affirming his demotion, he must first exhaust his judicial remedies by appealing the SPB’s decision
24 through a of writ of administrative mandate. (Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000) 24 Cal.4th 61,
25 69-70 (Johnson)). Challenging the SPB decision by way of writ petition “is necessary to avoid
26 giving binding ‘effect to the administrative agency’s decision, because that decision has achieved
27 finality due to the aggrieved party’s failure to pursue the exclusive judicial remedy for reviewing
28 administrative action.’ (Briggs v. City of Rolling Hills Estates (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 637, 646, 47
-5-
DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
1 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, original italics.)” (Johnson, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 70.) This requirement provides
2 “proper respect to an administrative agency’s quasi-judicial procedures by precluding a party from
3 circumventing the established process for judicial review of such decisions by means of a petition
4 for administrative mandate; and . . . ‘providing a uniform practice of judicial, rather than jury,
5 review of quasi-judicial administrative decisions.’ ([Westlake Community Hosp. v. Superior Court
6 (1976) 17 Cal.3d 465, 484.])” (Johnson, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 70.)
7 B. Public Policy Considerations Favor a Stay
8 The discussion of public policy considerations in Castillo v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 92
9 Cal.App.4th 477 is instructive. The court was addressing whether or not a FEHA claim should be
10 barred because an element of that claim had been previously litigated in an administrative hearing.
11 Essentially, the court was grappling with the same issue we have here, that is, whether it is proper to
12 have two claims that are essentially the same, but the subject of two separate actions: a civil claim
13 and a Writ.
14 The first consideration discussed in Castillo is “the integrity of the judicial system.”
15 “[T]hough we have determined that issue preclusion may be applied in the present case, we must
16 examine the public policy considerations enumerated in Lucido to determine if we should estop
17 relitigation. The first policy is integrity of the judicial system.” (Id. at 483.) The court focused on “. .
18 . the possibility of inconsistent judgments, which may undermine the integrity of the judicial
19 system.” Certainly, it is possible a jury or court my decide the issues presented in this case in favor
20 of one party while the writ may well come to a different conclusion on identical issues. The primary
21 issue, the wrongfulness of the discipline imposed on the plaintiff, is at the heart of both the civil case
22 and the writ of mandamus. Judicial integrity would not be served by such a result.
23 Next, the court in Castillo addressed “judicial economy.” “Allowing the trial court to rely on
24 the litigated and necessary findings from the administrative process would “minimiz[e] repetitive
25 litigation.” (Id., at 483.) Surely, that is what we have here. The Plaintiff filed a civil suit arguing that
26 he was wrongfully disciplined, then appealed that discipline to the SPB, received a final decision
27 from that entity, and then filed a writ challenging that decision. There are now two cases addressing
28
-6-
DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
1 identical issues, utilizing the court’s resources when judicial economy would be best served by, at a
2 minimum, staying the civil court case.
3 Finally, the court in Castillo discussed the last “public policy consideration” element to
4 consider, vexatious litigation. The court defined vexatiousness as, “harassment through baseless or
5 unjustified litigation.” (Id., at 483-484.) The court then applied this standard to Castillo, “The policy
6 against vexatious litigation favors applying issue preclusion here because Castillo had an adequate
7 opportunity at the administrative hearing to prove that his discharge was wrongful, and because a
8 single interest is being protected by both the administrative and present proceedings.” (Id., at 484.)
9 The Plaintiff in the instant case, like Castillo, had a full and fair administrative hearing to prove that
10 his discipline was wrongful. He did not succeed. The single interest being protected in both the
11 administrative hearing and the civil case are the same as in Castillo – to prove his discharge was
12 wrongful.
13 All three elements addressed by the court are present here. These public policy
14 considerations weigh heavily in favor of issuing a stay in this case.
15 //
16 //
17 //
18 //
19 //
20 //
21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //
-7-
DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
1 IV. CONCLUSION
2 Staying this action until final resolution of Mooradian’s petition for writ of administrative
3 mandate will increase judicial economy and reduce inconsistent rulings. Moreover, Mooradian’s
4 administrative challenge to his demotion must be final before he can proceed with his civil action
5 challenging the demotion. Caltrans request this Court stay this action including but not limited to
6 discovery, law and motion and trial until final resolution of the administrative proceedings is
7 reached.
8 Dated: November 2, 2020
ERIN E. HOLBROOK, Chief Counsel
9 ALAN M. STEINBERG, Deputy Chief Counsel
10 HEIDI A. SKINNER, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel
W. CHRISTOPHER SIMS, Deputy Attorney
11 PHILLIP S.O. COONLEY, Deputy Attorney
12
13
By_______________________________________
14 W. CHRISTOPHER SIMS
PHILLIP S.O. COONLEY
15 Attorneys for
Defendant California Department of Transporation
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-8-
DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS