2013-00146129-CU-OE

Victoria Lee Dinger Main vs. Dolgen California, LLC

Nature of Proceeding:  Motion to Stay

Filed By:  McGuigan, Kathryn T.

Defendant Dolgen California LLC’s Motion to Stay action pending the Judicial Council
decision on Petition to Coordinate this case with  Varela v Dolgen is granted.

The Court is ordering a 45 day stay of this action, including the ruling on the motion to
compel set for June 12, 2014, to July 14, 2014.

In this case and in the Varela case, plaintiffs allege claims against Dolgen for failure to
provide meal and rest periods and related claims.  Two weeks after Varela filed his
case in Riverside County, Plaintiff filed this action on behalf of the same or similar
putative class making many of the same claims.

Plaintiff served discovery on Dolgen on February 5, 2014.  Dolgen contends it has
been served with similar discovery in the Varela case.  Dolgen seeks to avoid
duplicative work and possibly inconsistent rulings on the discovery issues from
different courts. Plaintiff’s counsel in  Varela has agreed to provide Dolgen an extension
of time to respond to discovery in the  Varella case until the Petition is heard.
Defendant filed its Petition to coordinate with the Judicial Council on April 28, 2014.
Plaintiff’s discovery motion is set for hearing on June 12, 2014.  The Petition for
Coordination is not likely to be heard before the hearing on plaintiff’s discovery motion,
although in Reply Dolgen represents that it has been informed by the Judicial Council
that the decision on the Petition to Coordinate will be made no later than the second
week of June.

California trial courts have inherent power to exercise reasonable control over all
proceedings connected with litigation before them. Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 128.
Even further, inherent powers of the Court are derived from the State Constitution and
are not confined by or dependent on statute. See, e.g., Cottle v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.
App. 4th 1367 (1992). Trial courts have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the
interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency. Frieberg v. City of Mission Viejo
(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489; Walker v. Super. Ct (1997) 53 Cal. 3d 257, 266.
This power includes a court’s authority to manage and control its own calendar and
cases. Id. al 267-68; accord Rosenburg v. Super Ct. (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 860, 867
(“We agree that the … authority to control calendars and dockets, are part of the
court’s inherent authority.”); Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois Inc. (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 953,
967 (“it is also well established that courts have fundamental inherent equity,
supervisory, and administrative powers, as well as inherent power to control litigation
before them. In addition to the inherent equitable power derived from the historic
power of equity courts, all courts have inherent supervisory or administrative powers
which enable them to carry out their duties, and which exist apart from any statutory
authority.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)). A court’s power to stay its
proceedings is “incidental to the power 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.” Landis v. N. Am. Co .(1936) 299 U.S. 248, 254.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 404.5 and Rule 3.515 authorize a stay of
any action being considered for, or affecting an action being considered for,
coordination. Rule 3.515(t) sets forth the standard for such a motion for stay:

In ruling on a motion for a stay order, the assigned judge must determine whether the
stay will promote the ends of justice, considering the imminence of any trial or other
proceeding that might materially affect the status of the action to be stayed, and
whether a final judgment in that action would have a res judicata or
collateral estoppel effect with regard to any common issue of the included actions.

The Court believes that the brief stay is necessary to prevent prejudice to Defendant
by possible inconsistent rulings or duplicative discovery.  For example, it makes no
sense to conduct two Person Most Knowledgeable depositions in each of the cases.
The Plaintiff has pointed to no prejudice, merely contending that defendant seeks to
delay this action.  Plaintiff’s argument that any discovery in this case could be used in
the coordinated matter does not address the potential situation of conflicting rulings on              discovery.

The prevailing party shall prepare a formal order for the Court’s signature pursuant to
C.R.C. 3.1312.