Rufina Molina et al v. City of Los Angeles et al

Filing 34

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY CASE 24 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lc). Modified on 12/13/2016 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

RUFINA MOLINA; ESTATE OF LUIS
MARTINEZ,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiffs,

Case № 2:16-cv-01293-ODW (ASx)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STAY CASE [24]

v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES; RICARDO
HUERTA; RUDOLPH RIVERA; ALDO
QUINTERO; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,
Defendants.

17
18
19

I.

INTRODUCTION

20

Plaintiffs Rufina Molina and the Estate of Luis Martinez, by and through its

21

successor in interest Rufina Molina (collectively, “Molina”) bring this action pursuant

22

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force, unreasonable seizure, and interference

23

with familial integrity. (See Compl., Not. of Removal Ex. 1, ECF No. 1-1.) Molina

24

originally filed the case in the Superior Court for the State of California, and

25

Defendants removed it to this Court on February 25, 2016. Also filed in state court is

26

a case that Defendants argue stems from the same operative facts as the case at bar,

27

styled as Monica Ramirez et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al., Case No. BC597276

28

(“Ramirez”).

(See Ramirez Compl., Mot. Ex. A, ECF No. 24-3.)

Due to the

1

similarities between the two cases, and in order to avoid duplicative discovery and the

2

potential for inconsistent or conflicting verdicts, Defendants ask the Court to stay the

3

instant case pending resolution of the Ramirez case. (Mot.) For the reasons discussed

4

below, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion.1 (ECF No. 24.)

5

II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

6

In Molina’s Complaint, she alleges that on April 21, 2015, three police officers

7

(Defendants Ricardo Huerta, Rudolph Rivera, and Aldo Quintero) shot and killed her

8

son, Luis Martinez. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 3, 9, 10.) At the time of the shooting, Martinez

9

was sitting in his wheelchair at his apartment. (Id. ¶ 9.) The officers entered the

10

apartment in response to a 911 call reporting that Martinez was suffering from mental

11

health problems and was suicidal. (Id. ¶ 10.) Molina alleges that Martinez was

12

unarmed and that the officers shot him following a confrontation. (Id. ¶ 12.)
Ramirez, the state court case, is also about the shooting death of Martinez.

13
14

(Ramirez Compl.)

The plaintiffs in Ramirez are Martinez’s wife, children, and

15

stepdaughter, who have asserted claims for wrongful death, violation of the Bane Act,

16

survivorship, negligence, and assault and battery, and seek punitive damages. (Id.

17

¶¶ 3, 4, 18–63.) The named defendants in Ramirez are identical to those in the instant

18

action. (Compare Ramirez Compl. ¶¶ 6–8, with Compl. ¶¶ 4–6.)

19

Counsel for Defendants inquired with the plaintiffs in both cases as to whether

20

they would voluntarily coordinate or consolidate the cases, but both declined. (Inlow

21

Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 24-1.)

22

independently of one another, Defendants argue that this case should be stayed

23

pending the conclusion of proceedings in Ramirez. Defendants contend that allowing

24

this case to continue at the same time as Ramirez will risk exposing Defendants to

25

double and/or inconsistent verdicts and duplicative discovery. (Mot. 3.) In addition,

26

Defendants suggest that the outcome of Ramirez may entitle them to issue preclusion,

27

1

28

Since the two cases are currently going forward

After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court deems
the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 715.

2

1

which may affect the outcome and issues to be tried in this case. (Id.)

2

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

3

District courts have the authority to stay civil proceedings when doing so would

4

further the interests of justice. Sec. and Exch. Comm’n v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 628

5

F.2d 1368, 1375 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (quoting United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12

6

(1970)). The Ninth Circuit has held that a court should consider the following factors

7

in deciding whether to stay civil proceedings:

8

(1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this
litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to
plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the
proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the
court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial
resources; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation;
and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal
litigation.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Federal Sav. And Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902–03 (9th Cir. 1989).

16

IV.

17
18

The Court weighs the above factors in coming to its conclusion.
A.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs’ Interest and Potential Prejudice
Because Molina opposed Defendants’ Motion to Stay, the Court concludes that

her interest is in avoiding delay in this litigation.

(See Opp’n, ECF No. 26.)

However, Molina does not actually argue that she would be prejudiced by a stay of
these proceedings. (See id.) As such, the Court determines that the only prejudice at
issue is that inherent in delaying a case that a plaintiff wishes to have resolved sooner.
Therefore, this factor weighs slightly in Molina’s favor.
B.

Burden on Defendants
Defendants argue that the simultaneous proceedings of this case and Ramirez

implicates their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and its prohibition against
reexamining or overturning factual determinations made by a jury. (Mot. 5–6.) The

3

1

plaintiffs in this case as well as in Ramirez have requested jury trials. (See Ramirez

2

Compl; Compl.) In addition, there is no dispute that the two cases involve identical

3

operative facts. (Id.)

4

Despite that, the Court agrees with Molina that a stay is not appropriate because

5

the causes of action in Ramirez are based in state law, whereas Molina is suing under

6

42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Opp’n 4–5.) Further, because the plaintiffs in the two actions

7

are entirely separate, the only party who could possibly use issue preclusion (if such a

8

strategy were available) would be Defendants.

9

preclusion is an affirmative defense); Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S.

10

322, 331 (1979) (“[I]n cases where a plaintiff could easily have joined in the earlier

11

action or where . . . the application of offensive estoppel would be unfair to a

12

defendant, a trial judge should not allow the use of offensive collateral estoppel.)

13

Here, there is no showing that the plaintiffs in the two cases could not have joined

14

together in one action. As such, the use of issue preclusion offensively against

15

Defendants is not a concern. Defendants’ Seventh Amendment rights are similarly

16

not implicated, because any jury in this case would be independently examining the

17

facts and coming to its own conclusion, not “reexamining” the state court verdict.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) (issue

18

In addition, since the two cases involve separate plaintiffs, Defendants’

19

argument that they will be subjected to duplicative discovery is not persuasive.

20

Plaintiffs in each case assert different causes of action, and therefore it is very likely

21

that they will seek different information during discovery. For these reasons, the

22

Court concludes that this factor weighs in favor of Molina.

23

C.

Interests of the Court and Preservation of Judicial Resources
While a stay of this case would preserve judicial resources at the moment, the

24
25

case would remain in federal jurisdiction.

In addition, it is uncertain whether

26

resolution of Ramirez will actually affect the resources needed to resolve this case.

27

Therefore, this factor weighs only slightly in favor of a stay.

28

D.

Interests of Third Parties and the Public

4

1

The relevance of these factors is also somewhat unclear. It is possible that the

2

resolution of Ramirez will influence the settlement or early resolution of this case,

3

thus requiring fewer third parties to be deposed.

4

defendants is a public entity (the City of Los Angeles), this may conserve public

5

resources. But since this is uncertain, these factors weigh very slightly in favor of

6

Defendants.

7

E.

Further, because one of the

Balancing of Factors

8

On balance, the Molinaro factors favor Molina. Defendants have not persuaded

9

the Court that they will be burdened without a stay. As a result, the Court concludes

10

that the Molinaro factors do not support a stay of these proceedings.

11

V.

12
13

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, the Court hereby DENIES Defendants’
Motion (ECF No. 24).

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

December 13, 2016

18
19
20
21

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5