Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV04486, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV04486    Hearing Date: November 20, 2024    Dept: 74

LUCRA Automotive LLC v. Bidlane LLC et al.

Defendants Nasrin Mansoori and Susan Mansoori’s Motion to Stay

BACKGROUND 

            This motion arises from a fraud and breach of contract claim against Bidlane LLC, Salim Mansoori (Salim), Nasrin Mansoori (Nasrin), Susan Mansoori (Susan) (collectively Defendants), the State of California Department of Motor Vehicles, Steven Gorden as Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles, and Does.  Plaintiff has named additional defendants.

            Defendants Nasrin and Susan filed a motion to stay proceedings until the outcome of the Department of Motor Vehicles’ investigation and any criminal litigation brought because of that investigation.

LEGAL STANDARD

            To determine if a court should stay proceedings in light of a parallel criminal case, the court considers “the extent to which a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights are implicated.”  (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885 (citing Keating v. Office of Third Supervision (1995) 45 F.3d 322, 324.)  The defendants must show how truthful testimony subject to the privilege could be helpful to their defense on the merits in this case.  (IBM Corp. v. Brown (1994) 857 F.Supp. 1384, 1390.)

The court also considers (1) the interest of the Plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously and the potential prejudice to the plaintiffs of a delay, (2) the burden that may be imposed on the defendant, (3) the convenience of the court and efficient use of judicial resources, (4) the interests of third persons, and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.  (Avant! Corp, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 885 (citing Keating, supra, 45 F.3d at p. 326.)) “A defendant has no absolute right not to be forced to choose between testifying in a civil matter and asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege.”  (Avant! Corp, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 885 (citing Keating, supra, 45 F.3d at p. 326.))

DISCUSSION

            LUCRA filed this civil action alleging that LUCRA provided floor-plan financing for Bidlane’s used-car business.  (Complaint, ¶ 19-22.)  Bidlane was supposed to use the financing to purchase vehicles and then to sell the vehicles, paying LUCRA the principal, interest, and fees.  (Complaint, ¶ 21.)  LUCRA alleges that instead of paying LUCRA, Bidlane converted the vehicles and failed to pay LUCRA the proceeds. The DMV is investigating Bidlane for customer complaints that Bidlane agreed to sell their vehicles and then failed to pay the customers as promised.  (Youngbin ¶ 4.) 

            These civil case and investigation are not identical, as the Defendants allege, but they are overlapping.  Both cases involve buying and selling cars, and Bidlane’s failure to pay for the cars it has purchased and sold at the same locations.  Based on documents available to the Court, the DMV is investigating only Bidlane.  The complaint alleges that Salim directs and controls Bidlane, and that the other defendants worked with Salim to create the fraudulent scheme.  (Complaint, ¶ 33.)  Defendants allege that an investigation into Bidlane, Salim and “others” is ongoing, but provide no evidence supporting that the “others” being investigated are Nasrin or Susan.  Given that Nasrin and Susan have failed to show that they are personally under investigation with the DMV, defendants Nasrin and Susan have failed to meet the initial showing that they are subject to a parallel criminal proceeding.

            Additionally, Nasrin and Susan have failed to demonstrate how truthful testimony subject to the Fifth Amendment privilege would be helpful in their defense in this case.  (IBM Corp, supra, 857 F.Supp. at p. 1390.) 

CONCLUSION

            The court denies defendants Nasrin Mansoori and Susan Mansoori’s motion to stay the proceedings.

            Defendants to give notice.