Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV27968, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27968    Hearing Date: May 9, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     May 9, 2023                           TRIAL DATE:  February 23, 2024

CASE:                         Isabel Hernandez v. Jordi X. Kellogg, Jr.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV27968

MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Jordi X. Kellogg, Jr. and Jordi X. Kellogg, M.D.

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          BACKGROUND

            On August 26, 2022, Plaintiff Isabel Hernandez filed this Complaint against defendants Jordi X. Kellogg, Jr. (“Defendant”) and Jordi X. Kellogg, M.D. (“Dr. Kellogg”) for (1) Assault and Battery, (2) False Imprisonment, (3) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (4) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, (5) Property Damage, (6) Premises liability (Negligence), and (7) Negligent Entrustment.[1]  

Plaintiff alleges that she and Defendant were in a relationship and that Defendant had a history of physical aggression when intoxicated.  Dr. Kellogg, with full awareness of Defendant’s dependence on alcohol and violent tendencies, invited Plaintiff and Defendant to move to Marina Del Rey and live on his boat.  Plaintiff and Defendant accepted the invitation.  Between March 12, 2021 and March 13, 2021, Defendant and Plaintiff were driving back to the boat after attending a party when Defendant became verbally abusive towards Plaintiff.  Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Defendant had been drinking alcohol at the party.  The verbal abuse continued on the boat and escalated with Defendant vandalizing Plaintiff’s belongings, physically pinning Plaintiff to the deck of the boat, and joking about sexual violence.

            On September 1, 2021, misdemeanor charges were filed against Defendant for violation of Penal Code section 243(e)(1) arising out of the incident with Plaintiff.  Defendant pleaded no contest on January 28, 2022.  Defendant’s probation and sentencing hearing is set for May 30, 2023.

On March 14, 2023, Defendant filed this motion for a stay of proceedings until resolution of the related criminal action.  Alternatively, Defendant requests a stay of discovery against him. 

The motion is unopposed.

II.        LEGAL STANDARDS

In deciding whether to stay proceedings when a civil defendant faces parallel criminal charges, courts engage in a two-step process.  First, the decision should be made “‘in light of the particular circumstances and competing interests involved in the case’ ... This means the decision maker should consider ‘the extent to which the defendant’s fifth amendment rights are implicated.’  [Citation.]”  (Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision (9th Cir. 1995) 45 F.3d 322, 324.)  Second, the court should consider: “(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.”  (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885; Keating, supra, 45 F.3d at p. 325.)  “[I]t has been consistently held that when both civil and criminal proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, an objecting party is generally entitled to a stay of discovery in the civil action until disposition of the criminal matter.”  (Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690.) 

III.      DISCUSSION

A.    Judicial Notice

Defendant requests judicial notice of (1) a Misdemeanor Complaint, filed September 1, 2021, against Defendant for violation of Penal Code section 243(e)(1), and (2) a criminal case summary showing that Defendant pleaded no contest to the misdemeanor charges on January 28, 2022.  The unopposed requests are GRANTED.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

B.     Analysis

Defendant argues that good cause exists to stay all proceedings because Plaintiff’s counsel has indicated their intention to appear at Defendant’s sentencing hearing and to contest the validity of Defendant’s plea and probation terms.  (See Woods, Decl., Ex. B.)  Further, Defendant also represents that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege in refusing to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery while criminal charges remain pending.  As such, Defendant argues that a stay will promote judicial efficiency by avoiding privilege issues that will arise if discovery proceeds before full resolution of the criminal action.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause exists to stay discovery as to Defendant until the resolution of the related criminal case.  “[W]hen both civil and criminal proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, an objecting party is generally entitled to a stay of discovery in the civil action until disposition of the criminal matter.”  (Pacers, Inc., supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at p. 690.)  As Plaintiff has not opposed this motion, the Court further finds that that no prejudice will result from staying discovery as to Defendant.

IV.       CONCLUSION

            The motion to stay all proceedings is DENIED. 

The motion to stay discovery as to Defendant Jordi X. Kellogg, Jr. is GRANTED.  Discovery is stayed as to Defendant Jordi X. Kellogg, Jr. until June 12, 2023.  Counsel for Defendant Kellogg, Jr. is ordered to file a status report, no later than June 5th regarding the outcome of the May 30, 2023 sentencing hearing.  The stay of discovery expires on June 12, 2023, unless Defendant seeks a continuance of the stay by a timely-filed noticed motion, in which case the stay shall remain in effect until the motion is heard.  Any motion seeking to continue the stay must be filed and served no later than June 12, 2023.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   May 9, 2023                                   ___________________________________

                                                                                    Kerry Bensinger

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  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 the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.