arrow left
arrow right
  • Theodore Mooradian vs. State of California State Transportation Agency15 Unlimited - Other Employment document preview
  • Theodore Mooradian vs. State of California State Transportation Agency15 Unlimited - Other Employment document preview
  • Theodore Mooradian vs. State of California State Transportation Agency15 Unlimited - Other Employment document preview
  • Theodore Mooradian vs. State of California State Transportation Agency15 Unlimited - Other Employment document preview
  • Theodore Mooradian vs. State of California State Transportation Agency15 Unlimited - Other Employment document preview
  • Theodore Mooradian vs. State of California State Transportation Agency15 Unlimited - Other Employment document preview
  • Theodore Mooradian vs. State of California State Transportation Agency15 Unlimited - Other Employment document preview
  • Theodore Mooradian vs. State of California State Transportation Agency15 Unlimited - Other Employment document preview
						
                                

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