Motion for Stay of Proceedings
[3] In opposition, Davis argues that there was an adverse employment action based on her sexual orientation as there was a drastic reduction of her hours and she was constructively terminated as her continued employment was intolerable. (Opp., at p. 16.)
The court notes that these allegations are not part of her ninth cause of action as pled in the complaint. (Complaint, P.P. 84-87.) As such, the court will not consider such arguments. (Laabs v. City of Victorville (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1258 ["The complaint limits the issues to be addressed at the motion for summary judgment[/adjudication]. "Thus, a 'defendant moving for summary judgment need address only the issues raised by the complaint; the plaintiff cannot bring up new, unpleaded issues in his or her opposing papers.' [Citation.]"].)
However, as found above, the court finds that Moving Defendants demonstrated a nondiscriminatory reason for Davis' termination due to Crush's bankruptcy.
LGBT Center and Roberto Cervantes' Motion for Stay of Proceedings is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 13, 2026, Plaintiff Mario Gilberto Marroquin ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Defendants Los Angeles LGBT Center ("Center") and Roberto Cervantes ("Cervantes") alleging causes of action for: 1. Sexual Assault; 2. Sexual Battery; 3. Negligent Hiring; 4. Negligent Supervision; and 5. Negligent Retention.
On May 13, 2026, Defendants filed this Motion for Stray of Proceedings. On June 30, 2026, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On July 13, 2026, Defendants filed a reply.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
"[A] court ordinarily has inherent power, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice." (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 141, citing People v. Bell (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 323, 329.)
"[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." (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants move the court for an order staying this action. (Motion, at p. 1.)
Defendants provide that the Center submitted this matter to the Department of Health and Human Services ("DHHS") for review and determination of coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act as an entity receiving federal funds pursuant to the Public Health Service Act. (Id., at pp. 1-2.)
Defendants contend that if DHHS determines that Defendants are immune, the United States will be required to remove the instant matter to federal court to substitute itself as the named defendant on behalf of Defendants. (Ibid.)
Defendants also provide that that a mandatory reporter reported Plaintiff's allegations to the appropriate authorities, and as such an investigation was started. (Id., at pp. 2-3.)
As such, Defendants contend that a stay would allow criminal proceedings and investigation to proceed without implicating Cervante's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Ibid.)
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that a DHHS determination that Defendants are immune is legally impossible as Cervantes' alleged sexual assault is not within the scope of employment and not subject to the Federal Tort Claims Act. (Opp., at p. 2.)
Plaintiff also argues that Defendants failed to demonstrate that any criminal proceeding against Cervantes is actually ongoing to warrant a stay. (Id., at pp. 3-4.)
The court finds that based on the outstanding issues described, a stay of the entire proceeding is in the interest of justice. Although Plaintiff certainly has an interest in proceeding to trial expeditiously, the court concludes that they will not be substantially prejudiced by a limited stay.
The court also finds that granting a stay promotes judicial efficiency. If the case proceeds while criminal proceedings are ongoing, it will likely result in extensive discovery disputes related to Cervantes' invocation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.
Courts have consistently recognized that forcing a party into repeated privilege assertions creates a "spasmodic" and inefficient litigation process, unnecessarily burdening both the parties and the court. (Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690; Avant! Corp v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 888.)
Moreover, a determination regarding immunity may lead to the case proceeding in a different forum. A stay in this matter would simplify management of this case and conserve judicial resources. Accordingly, the motion is granted.
IV. CONCLUSION
Defendants Los Angeles LGBT Center and Roberto Cervantes' Motion for Stay of Proceedings is GRANTED. | Home -->)" -->