Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV41061, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV41061    Hearing Date: September 7, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE:     September 7, 2023                             TRIAL DATE:  June 28, 2024

CASE:                         Danny Leos, by and through his Successor in Interest, Yvonne Leos v. Bertha Molinari, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV27968

MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Bertha Molinari

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

I.          BACKGROUND

            On December 30, 2022, Plaintiff, Yvonne Leos, as the Successor In Interest of Danny Leos, initiated this wrongful death action against Defendants, Bertha Molinari (“Molinari”), County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and City of Montebello, arising from a motor vehicle versus motorcycle accident resulting in Danny Leos’s death.  Molinari was the driver of the motor vehicle.  In the Traffic Collision Report prepared by the Montebello Police Department, the Report recommends that Molinari be investigated for vehicular manslaughter.

On July 14, 2023, Molinari filed this motion for a stay of proceedings until resolution of the criminal investigation.

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 (Pacers).) 

III.      DISCUSSION

Molinari argues good cause exists to stay proceedings because the accident has been forwarded to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office for investigation of vehicular manslaughter charges against Molinari.  As such, a stay of proceedings is necessary to protect Molinari’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.  

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the proceedings should be stayed.  Molinari indicates her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination will be implicated if this case is not stayed pending resolution of the criminal investigation.  Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the stay as evidenced by the failure to oppose this motion.  

IV.       CONCLUSION

            Accordingly, the motion to stay proceedings is GRANTED.  Proceedings in this matter are stayed for 60 days.  The Court calendars a Status Conference Re: Stay of Proceedings for November 7, 2023 at 8:30 AM. 

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   September 7, 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.