Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV21229, Date: 2025-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV21229    Hearing Date: April 18, 2025    Dept: 74

Garcia v. The Valley Prevention and Treatment Center et al.

Defendants’ Motion to Stay All Proceedings  

BACKGROUND 

The motion arises from intentional injury action.

Plaintiff Abigail Selene Sanchez Garcia (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendants The Valley Prevention and Treatment Center (VPTC) and Vivino Paez (collectively Defendants).  In the First Amended Complaint (FAC), Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action: (1) Sexual Harassment in Violation of California Code of Civil Procedure section 51.9; (2) Sexual Battery/Assault; (3) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (4) Negligence Per Se; (5) Negligence; (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (7) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; (8) Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Supervision. 

A criminal investigation is currently pending against defendant Vivino Paez (Paez).

Defendants move to stay the entire civil action pending the completion of the criminal action.

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

             Defendants seek to stay the entirety of the action on the basis that Paez is under criminal investigation for the alleged assault underlying the civil complaint.  The Court may stay the entire proceedings, or discovery, when a defendant’s truthful testimony may assist with the defense.  (IBM, supra, 857 F.Supp. at p. 1390.)  Paez is both an individual defendant, and an employee of VPTC. 

There is clear overlap between the criminal and civil actions against Paez.  Thus, Paez’s Fifth Amendment is implicated as to at least some causes of action. Accordingly, reason exists to examine the Keating factors for Paez.  Defendants do not show, however, that VPTC is under criminal investigation and as a corporation, VPTC does not have a Fifth Amendment interest.  (Avant!, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 886.) 

Examining the Keating factors, as with any delay, Plaintiff is entitled to an expeditious resolution to her claims.  (Fuller v. Superior Ct. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 306.)  Defendant properly recognizes that with delay comes loss of evidence, fading memories, and uncertainty.  Beyond the usual effects of delay, Plaintiff does not state any additional delay damages for the Court to consider.  Defendants state, rather vaguely, that Paez will be prejudiced if the proceedings continue.  They vaguely assert that even answering the Complaint would severely prejudice Paez’s ability to mount a defense.  The effects on the court, whether a stay is granted or not, are minimal.  Neither party identifies a non-party interested in the case. Similarly, the Public has both an interest in the speedy resolution of a case to limit docket burden and an interest in maintaining the sanctity of the criminal process.  Thus, weighing the factors, the Court finds it reasonable to stay discovery, but not the action, for defendant Paez.  The Court does not stay discovery or the action for defendant VPTC. 

VPTC alleges that defendant Paez, and his wife Silvia Hernandez, are CEO and CFO of VPTC and some discovery against VPTC may intersect with Paez’s intention to invoke his Fifth Amendment right, and Silvia Hernandez’s intention to invoke spousal privilege.  Allowing the action and discovery to proceed does not bar them from asserting those privileges as objections to discovery.

CONCLUSION

            The Court grants in part Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings.  The Court grants a stay of discovery propounded to Defendant Vivino Paez until the completion of the criminal proceedings.  The Court denies a stay for Defendant The Valley Prevention and Treatment Center.

            Defendants to give notice.