Judge Joel R Wohlfeil, Case 37-2023-00029738-CU-PO-CTL 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2023-00029738-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 13, 2023

12/15/2023 09:00:00 AM C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00029738-CU-PO-CTL M VS SAN DIEGO ROCK CHURCH [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 10/18/2023

The Motion (ROA # 41) of Defendants PACIFIC COAST ACADEMY, DEBORAH KOHL and EMILY MENDENHALL ('Defendants Pacific Coast'), and the Joinder (ROA # 42) of Defendants San Diego Rock Church, Kevin Johnstone & Mickey Stonier ('Defendants Rock Church'), for an order staying the civil proceedings until completion of the criminal case in the matter of The People of the State of California v. Leticia McCormack, Stanley Tom, Adella Tom, San Diego Superior Court Case No.

CE414848, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

The trial will be stayed pending resolution of the criminal prosecution. If and when Defendants Leticia McCormack, Stanley Tom and Adella Tom appear in this action, their obligation to respond to discovery and their ability to propound discovery are stayed. However, all other discovery can continue absent a specific additional stay order issued by this Court.

Where the Court is confronted with a civil defendant, who is exposed to criminal prosecution arising from the same facts, the Court should weigh the parties' competing interests with a view toward accommodating the interests of both parties, if possible. Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court, (1984) 162 Cal. App. 3d 686, 688 Id. at 690.

There are three main competing interests to consider.

First, a dilemma for Defendant exists because Defendant must choose 'between defending the civil litigation by providing testimony that may be incriminating on the one hand, and losing the case by asserting the constitutional right and remaining silent, on the other hand.' Fuller v. Superior Court, (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 299, 306 (internal citations omitted).

Second, Plaintiff has an interest in and is 'entitled to an expeditious and fair resolution of their civil claims' using civil discovery statutes to 'safeguard against surprise and gamesmanship, and to prevent delay.' Id. Finally, the Court has an interest 'in fairly and expeditiously disposing of civil cases, and in efficiently utilizing judicial resources.' Id. The Court has 'devised a number of procedures designed to accommodate the specific circumstances of the case.' Id. at 307.

Accommodations include, but are not limited to, staying the civil proceeding until disposition of the Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3039356 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: M VS SAN DIEGO ROCK CHURCH [IMAGED] 37-2023-00029738-CU-PO-CTL related prosecution, allowing the civil defendant to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, even if doing so may limit Defendant's ability to put on a defense, and conferring an immunity on the party invoking the privilege. Id. at 307, 308.

'[T]he alleviation of tension between constitutional rights has been treated as within the province of a court's discretion in seeking to assure the sound administration of justice.' People v. Coleman, (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 867, 885.

The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision (9th Cir. 1995) 45 F. 3d 322, 324.

In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, simultaneous parallel civil and criminal proceedings are generally unobjectionable. Id. Nevertheless, the Court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings when the interests of justice seem to require such action. Id. The decision 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. Id. This means the decisionmaker should consider the extent to which the defendant's fifth amendment rights are implicated. Id. In addition, the decisionmaker should generally consider the following factors: (1) the interest of Plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously, 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.

Id. at 324, 325.

Regarding the first Keating factor, Plaintiffs have already suffered greatly and are entitled to the prompt prosecution of this action such that they can realize any compensation for which they are entitled and begin the healing process. It is axiomatic that delay increases the potential prejudice resulting from the loss of evidence, including the inability of witnesses to recall specific facts.

Regarding the second factor, it is undisputed that the parallel criminal case involves the same facts and witnesses as this action. The fifth amendment rights of Defendants Leticia McCormack, Stanley Tom and Adella Tom are implicated. The rights of the remaining Defendants to access the evidence they need to mount meaningful defenses in this civil action are also implicated. Whether, and to what extent, any Defendant could be subjected to multiple depositions will be addressed at a later time if this becomes necessary.

Regarding the third factor, this Court has an interest in efficiently and expeditiously resolving matters on its docket. However, it is questionable as to how efficiently this action could be managed given the inability to complete meaningful discovery considering the right to avoid self-incrimination. As resolution necessitates a fair trial before a fact finder, resolution may be impossible in the absence of a stay.

Regarding the fourth factor, the Court is unaware of any non-parties whose interests will be affected by a stay.

Regarding the fifth factor, the public has an interest in a speedy resolution of both the criminal and civil actions. However, the criminal action takes precedence. See S.E.C. v. Nicholas (C. D. Cal. 2008) 569 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1072 (criminal case is of primary importance to the public and Defendant).

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3039356