ALDO ADRIAN GRANADOS CASTRO ET AL VS. ALL NATURAL STONE BERKELEY, INC. ET AL

Matter on the LAW AND MOTION / DISCOVERY CALENDAR FOR MONDAY, JUN-30-2025, LINE 9. 1-DEFENDANT CAESARSTONE USA, INC.'S Motion To Stay This Case Pending Silicosis Cases Petition For Coordination. (PART ONE OF TWO).

Defendant Caesarstone USA, Inc.'s motion to stay is DENIED. Plaintiff is suing Defendants for causing him to be exposed to toxic silica dust.

On April 1, 2025, Los Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge Sergio C. Tapia II petitioned the Judicial Council to coordinate similar silica dust cases into a Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP). On May 16, 2025, the Judicial Council ordered the Assistant Supervising Judge of the Complex Litigation Courts of LA County to decide the petition on August 20, 2025. This case is one of the cases the coordination motion judge will decide whether to coordinate on August 20, 2025.

Defendant moves to stay this case under the court's inherent power to stay cases. Certainly, the court has the inherent power to stay cases. (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 141.) However, the court declines to do so today because the statutes governing coordination deliberately vest the coordination judge with the power to stay the proceedings. "Pending any determination of whether coordination is appropriate, the judge making that determination may stay any action being considered for, or affecting an action being considered for, coordination." (Code Civ. Procedure section 404.5.) Though this does not deprive the court of its inherent authority to stay proceedings, it evidences the legislature's intent for the coordination judge to decide whether cases are stayed pre-coordination.

Several other considerations weigh against the granting of a stay. First, staying these cases could deprive Plaintiff of the right to seek trial preference. Second, a stay until the coordination petition is decided would only presumably last a few months, given that the coordination judge is slated to decide the petition on August 20, 2025. Third, much of the case law on this issue discusses avoiding inconsistent judgments. (OTO, 8 Cal.5th at 141; St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. AmerisourceBergen Corporation (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1, 14.)

But the coordination judge is not going to decide the merits of these cases on August 20, 2025. The petition does not call on the coordination judge to make any merits determinations. Rather, the coordination is designed to coordinate separate tort cases with similar facts. There is no res judicata concern alleviated by staying all these actions if the stay only lasts until the coordination is decided.

Lastly, Defendants have not moved to stay all cases targeted for coordination in this court. By the court's count, only thirteen motions to stay have been filed out of twenty-one cases targeted for coordination by the petition. So even if the court were to grant all the requested stays, there would still be a risk of inconsistent judgments because Defendants have not covered every case. Accordingly, the court finds the interests of justice are not served by a stay of these cases. (END OF PART ONE OF TWO) =(301/JT) | |