Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Doe v. Twins Chiropractic and Physical Medicine, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Defendant, Twins Chiropractic and Physical Medicine’s motion for a stay of proceedings is DENIED, without prejudice.

The Court has the power to control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 128(a)(8).)  “ ‘California courts have inherent power to “... control [their] proceedings.” ’ (Vidrio v. Hernandez (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1454, 92 Cal.Rptr.3d 178, quoting Bauguess v. Paine (1978) 22 Cal.3d 626, 637, 150 Cal.Rptr. 461, 586 P.2d 942.) “From their creation by article VI, section 1 of the California Constitution, California courts received broad inherent power ‘not confined by or dependent on statute.’ [Citations.] This inherent power includes ‘fundamental inherent equity, supervisory, and administrative powers, as well as inherent power to control litigation.’ [Citation.]” (Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 736, 758, 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 268, fn. omitted.)

California courts have followed the test set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision (9th Cir. 1995) 45 F.3d 322, in determining whether to stay a civil proceeding pending the outcome of a parallel criminal case. (In Re Alpha Media Resort Investment (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1121, 1131-1132.) The determination is made in light of the particular circumstances and interest at hand and the test considers the following:  “ ‘[T]he decisionmaker should consider “the extent to which the defendant’s fifth amendment rights are implicated.” [Citation.] In addition, the decisionmakers should generally consider the following factors:  (1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 1132.)

Moving Defendants assert that the potential assertion of the fifth amendment privilege by Carillo will prevent them from developing a defense in the case.  Although they cite two district court cases in support, each of those cases involved the target of the criminal proceeding moving for a stay.  Here, there is no reason discovery may continue while Carillo’s criminal case is proceeding.  Alhtough discovery on Carillo may not be possible until after his criminal case is resolved, the Court prefers to allow the remainder of discovery to continue, and take Carillo’s availability into consideration in setting a trial date. 

Moving party to give notice.