Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV31055, Date: 2025-01-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV31055    Hearing Date: January 15, 2025    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving, opposition, joinder, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

A.   Prior proceedings 

On December 20, 2023, Plaintiffs Joshua Nassir, individually and as successor in interest to Decedent Soheila Hobebsion, and Omid Nassir, individually and as successor in interest to Decedent Soheila Hobebsion, filed this action against Defendants Julius Terrell (“Terrell”), Mike Levy (“Levy”), and Does 1-20 for wrongful death and negligence. 

On January 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. 

On March 1, 2024, Terrell filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Levy and Roes 1-20 for indemnity, apportionment of fault, comparative fault, and declaratory relief.  On April 8, 2024, Levy filed an answer to Terrell’s cross-complaint. 

On March 11, 2024, Levy filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Terrell and Zoes 1-20 for comparative indemnity. On March 25, 2024, Terrell filed an answer to Levy’s cross-complaint. 

On March 25, 2024, Intervenor Technology Insurance Company (“Intervenor”) filed a complaint in intervention. On April 10, 2024, Terrell filed an answer. 

Trial is currently set for June 18, 2025. 

B.   Terrell’s motions to stay discovery 

On March 4, 2024, Terrell filed a motion to stay discovery to be heard on April 19, 2024. On April 8, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition and evidentiary objections. On April 15, 2024, Terrell filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to May 31, 2024.  On May 31, 2024, the Court denied the motion. 

On October 2, 2024, Terrell filed another motion to stay discovery.  The motion was set for hearing on December 9, 2024.  On November 13, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition.  On November 18, 2024, Intervenor filed a joinder in Plaintiffs’ opposition.  On December 2, 2024, Terrell filed a reply.  The Court continued the hearing to January 15, 2025. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Terrell asks the Court to stay discovery directed at him pending the outcome of his criminal case. 

Plaintiffs and Intervenor oppose the motion. 

LEGAL STANDARDS 

A.   Reconsideration 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 provides: 

“(a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. 

“(b) A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. For a failure to comply with this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on ex parte motion. 

“(c) If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order. 

“(d) A violation of this section may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as allowed by Section 128.7. In addition, an order made contrary to this section may be revoked by the judge or commissioner who made it, or vacated by a judge of the court in which the action or proceeding is pending. 

“(e) This section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section. 

“(f) For the purposes of this section, an alleged new or different law shall not include a later enacted statute without a retroactive application. 

“(g) An order denying a motion for reconsideration made pursuant to subdivision (a) is not separately appealable. However, if the order that was the subject of a motion for reconsideration is appealable, the denial of the motion for reconsideration is reviewable as part of an appeal from that order. 

“(h) This section applies to all applications for interim orders.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.) 

B.   Stay pending criminal proceedings 

“ ‘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 

A.   Terrell’s request for reconsideration 

Terrell asks the Court to reconsider its May 31, 2024 order denying Terrell’s previous motion to stay discovery.  Terrell argues that the Court denied Terrell’s previous motion in large part because Terrell had not yet been charged with any crimes.  Subsequently, on August 15, 2024, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office charged Terrell criminally.

The Court finds that Terrell has established the existence of new or different facts supporting reconsideration.  The Court grants Terrell’s request to reconsider the May 31, 2024 order in light of these new facts. 

B.   Terrell’s request to stay discovery 

The Court has considered (1) the extent to which Terrell’s Fifth Amendment rights are implicated, (2) Plaintiffs’ interests, (3) the burden on Terrell, (4) the convenience of the Court in the management of the case, (4) the interests of persons who are not parties to the civil litigation, and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.  Having weighed these factors, the Court concludes that Terrell has shown that the interests of justice require the Court to stay discovery directed at Terrell. The Court exercises its discretion to grant the motion.

CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Defendant Julius Terrell’s renewed motion to stay discovery directed at him in this civil action pending the resolution of the criminal proceedings against him. 

         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.