Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV25340, Date: 2023-01-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25340    Hearing Date: January 27, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Nohemi Harrison’s Motion to Stay Action

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On August 4, 2022, Plaintiffs Fred Singer (“Fred”), Steven Singer (“Steven”), Mark Singer (“Mark”), Brian Singer (“Brian”) and the Estate of Carol Singer (“Estate”) filed this action against Defendant Nohemi Harrison (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence and negligence per se.

On September 9, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

On December 28, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings to be heard on January 27, 2023. On January 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On January 19, 2023, Defendant filed a reply.

Trial is currently set for February 1, 2024. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendant requests the Court stay the motion pending the outcome of the criminal case.

Plaintiffs request the Court deny the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 128 provides that every court has the power to amend and control its processes so as to them conform to law and justice. A stay of proceedings is within such inherent discretion of the court. (Bailey v. Fosca Oil Co. (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 813, 817.)

CRC 3.515(f) states “In ruling on a motion for a stay order, the assigned judge must determine whether the stay will promote the ends of justice, considering the imminence of any trial or other proceeding that might materially affect the status of the action to be stayed, and whether a final judgment in that action would have a res judicata or collateral estoppel effect with regard to any common issue of the included actions.”

When determining if there is good cause of grant a stay, the court considers four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” (Nken v. Holder (2009) 556 U.S. 418.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant requests the Court stay this case pending the outcome of the criminal case, involving this same incident, currently pending against Defendant. In determining whether there is good cause, the Court considers four factors.

Here, the Court finds that the overall factors weigh in favor of granting a stay. Defendant will be irreparably injured absent a stay, as responding to discovery may conflict with Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment rights in the pending criminal case. Preserving Defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights overcomes any injury done by issuing a stay pending the outcome of the criminal trial. The action has already been commenced, and Plaintiffs’ right to pursue civil litigation has been preserved. Finally, the public interest lies in staying the case pending the criminal case. Public interest supports a person’s right to a fair and just trial, according to the rules of this state and country.

Plaintiffs argue that in answering the complaint, asserting affirmative defenses, and serving discovery, Defendant has waived her right to assert self-incrimination privilege. Plaintiffs cite to multiple cases in which a plaintiff attempted to rely upon self-incrimination privilege. They specifically cite to Newson v. City of Oakland (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 1050, in which the court held that plaintiff could not “have his cake and eat it too.”

Defendant filing a timely answer and asserting affirmative defenses is not ‘having her cake and eating it too.’ It is Defendant preserving a legal right to appear in this action—to not be found in default. Furthermore, the Court does not find the mere service of discovery to be enough to completely wave a party’s right to counsel. Defendant’s actions differ from the cited cases because Defendant did not bring forward this litigation. Defendant merely responded to Plaintiffs’ litigation and acted accordingly.

Plaintiff argues there will be prejudice, as they have many depositions to conduct, and must do so while said deponents’ memories are fresh. The Court finds any prejudice caused by such a delay to be minimal. The subject accident only occurred in March of 2022—substantially more recent than most civil cases regarding motor vehicle negligence. Parties to be deposed will likely also be questioned via the criminal case, keeping memories of the incident relevant.

Based on the above, the Court grants the stay. In granting the stay, all parts of this case, including discovery, will be stayed pending the outcome the criminal case.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Nohemi Harrison’s Motion to Stay Action is GRANTED. The case is stayed pending the outcome of the criminal case.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.