Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV28568, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling
All parties are
urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to
see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If
you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in
advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather
than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be
advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the
hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the
matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in
the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.
If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT
WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to
argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of
your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request
the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the
hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 22STCV28568 Hearing Date: March 30, 2023 Dept: 28
Case Number: 22STCV28568 Hearing Date: February 14, 2023 Dept: 28
Defendant Veann Bracken’s Motion to Stay Action
Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On September 1, 2022, Plaintiff Madeline K. Strockis (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Veann Bracken (“Defendant”) for assault and battery.
On November 18, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.
On December 20, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Stay of Proceedings to be heard on February 14, 2023. On January 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On February 6, 2023, Defendant filed a reply.
Trial is currently set for February 29, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Defendant requests the Court stay the motion pending the outcome of the criminal case.
Plaintiff requests 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
Judicial Notice
The Court takes judicial notice of the requested document pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(c).
Stay
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 and asserting affirmative defenses such as self-defense, Defendant has waived her right to assert self-incrimination privilege. Defendant filing a timely answer and asserting affirmative defenses is Defendant preserving a legal right to appear in this action—to not be found in default. Defendant merely responded to Plaintiffs’ litigation and acted accordingly. The Court will not punish Defendant for answering the complaint.
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 Veann Bracken’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.