Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV29296, Date: 2024-06-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29296    Hearing Date: June 18, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27 

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDING 

Hearing Date: 6/18/24¿ 

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV29296 MDRAFEAL HAIDER CHOWDHURY vs LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL

Moving Party: Defendant Eddie F. Gonzalez

Responding Party: Plaintiff

Notice: Sufficient¿ 

Ruling: MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDING IS GRANTED

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.)

“[T]he privilege is properly invoked whenever the witness’s answers ‘would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute’ the witness for a criminal offense. [Citation.]” (People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, 617.) “[I]t need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.” (Ibid.)

Defendant Eddie Gonzalez’s request for judicial notice is granted pursuant to CCP § 452.

In People v. Gonzalez, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. NA118308, Eddie Gonzalez was charged with the murder of Manuela Rodriguez, a passenger in the vehicle with Plaintiffs Mdrafeal Haider Chowdhury and Shahriear Chowdhury. This criminal case arises out of the same transaction as the present personal injury case. Defendant Gonzalez now moves the Court to stay the civil proceeding until his criminal proceeding is resolved.

Plaintiff filed an opposition arguing that no discovery has been served and therefore there is no opportunity for Defendant to incriminate himself; however, this does not guarantee that no discovery will be served by either the co-defendant or Plaintiff in the future while Defendant’s criminal proceedings are pending. Given the strong policy favoring staying the civil action while the criminal proceeding arising out of the same or related transactions is ongoing, the present motion is granted.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.