Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV15116, Date: 2024-06-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15116    Hearing Date: June 25, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff Edwin Elias Lopez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Isaac Rey Medina (“Medina”), Maribel Islas (“Islas”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort, general negligence, and negligent entrustment of motor vehicle. 

On July 26, 2023, Medina filed an answer. 

On April 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Medina, Islas, and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort, general negligence, and negligent entrustment of motor vehicle. 

On April 22, 2024, Islas filed an answer. On May 17, 2024, Medina filed an answer. 

On May 17, 2024, Medina filed a motion to stay the civil action pending the resolution of criminal proceedings, to be heard on June 25, 2024. 

On May 24, 2024, Lopez filed a stipulation to stay discovery. 

Trial is currently set for December 26, 2024.  

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Medina asks the Court to stay the action pending the outcome of Medina’s criminal case. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

“ ‘The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. [Citations.]  “In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, [simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our jurisprudence.” [Citation.] “Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings ... ‘when the interests of justice seem[ ] to require such action.’ ” [Citation.]’ ”  (Alpha Media Resort Investment Cases (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1121, 1131-1132 (Alpha Media), quoting Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision (9th Cir.1995) 45 F.3d 322, 324 (Keating).) 

“[T]he decision whether to stay civil proceedings pending the outcome of a parallel criminal case should be made in light of the particular circumstances and interests at hand . . . .”  (Alpha Media, supra, 39 Cal.App.5th at p. 1132.) “ ‘[T]he decisionmaker should consider “the extent to which the defendant’s fifth amendment rights are implicated.” [Citation.] In addition, the decisionmaker should generally consider the following factors: (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.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Keating, supra, 45 F.3d at pp. 324-325.) 

DISCUSSION 

Medina asserts that he is facing criminal charges based on the same facts alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.  These facts involve Medina’s alleged driving under the influence, resulting in an accident that injured Plaintiff on February 19, 2023.  Medina asks the Court to protect his Fifth Amendment rights by staying the civil case until the limitations period for bringing criminal charges expires.

But Medina has not included a declaration or other evidence with his motion supporting his contentions about the existence and nature of the pending criminal case.  (See L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 9:43, p. 9(l)-26 [aside from demurrers, motions to strike, and motions for judgment on the pleadings, “[m]ost other motions . . . are decided on the basis of declarations, discovery documents, or other evidence presented to the court in support of the motion”].)
 

The Court denies the motion without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES without prejudice Defendant Isaac Rey Medina’s motion to stay the civil action pending the resolution of criminal proceedings. 

          Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.