Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

 

LUIS MORALES,

Plaintiff;  

vs. 

HOA SPECIALISTS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., 

Defendant. Case No.: 23STCV27567

DEFENDANT HOA SPECIALISTS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC.’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

HOA’s motion to stay proceedings is DENIED.

Moving party to provide notice.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND   

Defendant HOA Specialists Construction Services, Inc. (HOA) moves to stay proceedings on the grounds that there is a concurrent criminal case pending arising from the same events as this matter. Specifically, HOA argues that the Cross-Complaint and the criminal case arise from Morales’s alleged conversion of tools from HOA. 

HOA’s Cross-Complaint alleges that that in February 2018, HOA hired Morales to work as a general laborer. Morales’s employment ended in July 2023. In June 2023, Morales bought $1,500 in paint and billed HOA’s business account without permission. Morales took these materials for his own. After Morales was terminated, he came to an HOA jobsite and stole a compressor and tools. Morales was charged by Culver City police for the theft. Police then discovered that Morales had stolen $15,000 in other tools. HOA brings causes of action for conversion, economic damage, intentional misrepresentation, intentional interference with prospective economic relations, and negligent interference with prospective economic relations against Morales. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On November 9, 2023, Plaintiff Luis Morales filed his Complaint against HOA for violations of the labor code, and wrongful termination.

On December 18, 2023, HOA filed its Cross-Complaint against Morales.

On April 29, 2024, HOA filed this motion to stay proceedings.

On May 13, 2024, Morales filed an opposition.

DISCUSSION

HOA moves to stay proceedings on the grounds that there is a concurrent criminal proceeding pending pertaining to the same events as the Cross-Complaint. 

Legal Standard

“The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings…‘In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, [simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our jurisprudence…Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings…when the interests of justice seem…to require such action.’” (quoted in Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court, 79 Cal. App. 4th 876, 885 (2000) (quoting Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995)).)

The decision of whether to stay civil proceedings in the face of a parallel criminal proceeding should be made in light of the particular circumstances and competing interests involved in the case. (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876.) The trial court should consider the following factors in ruling on a motion to stay pending the resolution of criminal proceedings:¿¿ 

¿ 

1) the extent to which the party seeking the stay's fifth amendment rights are implicated;¿ 

 

2) the interest of the party opposing the stay in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to the party opposing the stay or a delay;¿¿ 

 

3) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on the party seeking the stay;¿¿ 

 

4) the convenience of the Court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources;¿¿ 

 

5) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and¿¿ 

 

6) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.¿¿ 

¿ 

(Id. at p. 885.)¿ 

¿ 

However, a defendant has no absolute right not to be forced to choose between testifying in a civil matter and asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege.¿ (Id.)¿ Not only is it permissible to conduct a civil proceeding at the same time as a related criminal proceeding, even if that necessitates invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege, but it is even permissible for the trier of fact to draw adverse inferences from the invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding.¿ (Id. at 885-886.)¿

Although a stay is most appropriate where the subject matter of the parallel civil and criminal proceedings are the same, there is no Constitutional requirement that civil proceedings be stayed merely because a parallel criminal proceeding is in the works. (Aspen Financial Services v. Dist. Ct. (2012) 128 Nev. 635, 642.) Courts that are confronted with a civil defendant who is exposed to criminal prosecution arising from the same facts ‘weigh the parties' competing interests with a view toward accommodating the interests of both parties, if possible.’” (Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 307.) Courts have accommodated defendants in a civil action facing parallel criminal proceedings from a standpoint of fairness, rather than from any constitutional right. (Id at p. 307.) Courts have devised procedures designed to accommodate the specific circumstances of each case, including allowing civil defendants to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, conferring an immunity on the party invoking the privilege, or precluding a litigant from waiving the privilege and testifying at trial to matters upon which the privilege has been asserted. (Id at 308.) 

Defendants may not invoke blanket privilege with respect to discovery requests. (Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 308.) The trial court must be given the opportunity to determine whether particular questions posed in the depositions would elicit answers that “support a conviction” or that “furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the witness” Id.

Discussion

Here, HOA alleges that there is a criminal case (LAX3AR11047-01) pending and that it would promote judicial efficiency to prevent duplicative recovery and judication of similar claims. 

The Court will determine whether a stay is appropriate using the factors set forth in Avant! and Keating. HOA fails to address the Avant! and Keating factors. In opposition, Morales argues that he does not wish to stay proceedings and has not sought to protect his own Fifth Amendment rights. Rather, Plaintiff wishes to continue prosecuting his employment claims. Nevertheless, the Court will determine whether the factors weigh in favor of a stay.

1. The extent to which the party seeking the stay's Fifth Amendment rights are implicated.

HOA fails to address whether Morales’s Fifth Amendment rights are implicated. Morales himself has not alleged that his Fifth Amendment rights would be implicated. However, because the Cross-Complaint and the pending criminal case both involve the conversion of HOA tools, discovery as to the allegations in the Cross-Complaint would implicate Morales’s Fifth Amendment rights. 

This factor weighs in favor of a stay.

2. The interest of the party opposing the stay in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to the party opposing the stay or a delay.

HOA makes a conclusory argument that staying this matter would promote judicial efficiency. Morales argues that staying proceedings would cause delay and deny Morales the opportunity to complete discovery. (Opp., p.3.) 

Morales is the party whose Fifth Amendment rights would be implicated. However, Morales represents he is not invoking his Fifth Amendment rights and instead seeks to proceed with this action. On the other hand, there is no evidence HOA would be prejudiced regardless of whether the stay is granted or denied. 

Because Morales is not seeking to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights, this factor weighs against a stay.

3. The burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on the party seeking the stay.

Again, HOA fails to address the Avant! and Keating factors. Normally, the burden on a party moving for the stay would involve seeking court intervention to address discovery disputes over privileged information. Here, because Morales is not invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege, there is little if any burden on HOA to proceed with this matter. 

This factor weighs against a stay.

4. The convenience of the Court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources.

HOA does not address how staying this matter would promote judicial efficiency. To stay this matter pending the completion of the concurrent criminal matter would delay this matter and require the Court to use judicial resources to remain up to date on the pending criminal matter. Staying this matter when Morales is not invoking his Fifth Amendment rights is not an efficient use of judicial resources.

This factor weighs against a stay.

5. The interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation.

There is no evidence that persons not parties to the civil litigation would be impacted by a stay. This factor does not weigh strongly in favor of  or against a stay.

6. The interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.¿¿

HOA does not address the public’s interest in this matter. There is no absolute Constitutional right that requires a civil action to be stayed while a concurrent criminal action is pending. This factor does not weigh strongly in favor or against a stay.

The factors do not weigh in favor of a stay. Morales is not invoking his Fifth Amendment rights and it does not appear that HOA would be prejudiced if this matter proceeds. Therefore, HOA’s motion to stay proceedings is denied.

DATED:  June 13, 2024

______________________

Hon. Jill Feeney 

Judge of the Superior Court