Judge: Maren Nelson, Case: 20STCV49421, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49421    Hearing Date: September 18, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Moving Defendants’ motion for a stay of proceedings is DENIED.

On 12/28/2020, Plaintiff Nalleli Cobo-Uriarte (Plaintiff) initiated this action. On 9/3/2021, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (FAC) against Allenco Energy, Inc., Timothy James Parker, Clifford E. Peter Allen, St. James Oil Corporation, and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, alleging: (1) negligence; and (2) strict liability for ultrahazardous activity.

            Now, Defendants Allenco Energy, Inc., Timothy James Parker, and Clifford E. Peter Allen (collectively, Moving Defendants) move for a stay of proceedings, pending the outcome of the ongoing parallel criminal matter.

Factual Background

On August 3, 2020, the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office (LACA) acting as The People of the State of California, filed a criminal Complaint and issued a summons on Moving Defendants, directing them to appear on 10/20/2020, to answer 25 misdemeanor criminal charges against them. The criminal case against moving defendants remains pending before the Honorable Elizabeth Harris, Department 47, Los Angeles Superior Court. The case here was filed 12/28/2020 and is set for jury trial on 11/27/23.

Allenco is alleged to have consistently polluted a residential neighborhood for years, until it was forced to shut down the facility in 2013 due to the level of contaminants omitted from the facility. After living near the Allenco site for over a decade, Plaintiff here was diagnosed with cervical cancer in January of 2020. She was nineteen years old at the time of the diagnosis.

Discussion

            Moving Defendants argue that a stay here is appropriate because there is a risk of self-incrimination as Defendants are required to participate in discovery in this civil action while the criminal case against them was pending.

            After review, the Court disagrees.

            As noted by the California Supreme Court, “the fact that a man is indicted cannot give him a blank check to block all civil litigation on the same or related underlying subject matter.” (People v. Coleman (1975) 13 Cal.3d 867, 885 (internal quotes omitted).) Rather, “[j]ustice is meted out in both civil and criminal litigation,” and the interests of justice “may very well require that the compensation and remedy due a civil plaintiff should not be delayed (and possibly denied).” (Ibid.)

            Thus, there is no constitutional right to have a civil proceeding postponed because of a parallel criminal proceeding, and in the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, simultaneous parallel civil and criminal proceedings are unobjectionable under our jurisprudence.” (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885.)  

Here, Defendants contend that the LACA’s criminal investigation into and prosecution of Defendants arises directly from the same or related transactions as in this action, which concern Allenco’s alleged prolonged polluting of a residential neighborhood. This, however, is a highly disputed fact.

            In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendants have failed to demonstrate “how Allenco’s failure to maintain its oil wells while in operation are covered under the City’s misdemeanor complaint.” (Opp., 18-19.)

Plaintiff’s deposition notice seeks documents like:

-         All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and anyone RELATING TO the SITE (Request No. 1);

-         All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any contamination migrating from the SITE (Request No. 2);

-         All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any complaints of contamination migrating from the SITE (Request No. 3); and,

-          All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any COMMUNICATION between YOU and any regulatory agencies RELATING TO the SITE. (Request No. 6).

LACA’s misdemeanor complaint charges 25 counts alleging the failure to properly remediate, maintain and operate the wells located at the facility, based largely on inspections conducted by CalGEM, SCAQMD and LAFD. Given that Plaintiff alleges that Defendants improperly maintained the oil wells at the facility, and failed to timely comply with directives issued by regulatory notices, there would seem to be at least some overlap. However, as noted by Plaintiff, the criminal complaint largely concerns Allenco’s alleged failure to address nonoperating wells, whereas this action concerns Allenco’s conduct and emissions while it operated the facility, and the initial steps to shut down the facility. This action also turns on issues of causation between Allenco’s conduct and Plaintiff’s cancer diagnosis, which is not in any way embraced by the criminal complaint. Also, be it the misdemeanor case has been going on for three years, there is no way to estimate when it might be concluded.

Furthermore, discovery on this case has been ongoing for years which puts into question the timeliness of this motion to stay.  The case is set for jury trial in two months (11/27/23) and the parties should be well underway designating experts.  As such, the Court is not persuaded that last-minute discovery and depositions will implicate Defendants’ Fifth Amendment privilege. However, the Court agrees that the appropriate course of action is to allow the deposition and production of documents to move forward, and for Defendants to assert the privilege specifically where appropriate. This is because while there may be overlap between this action and the criminal proceeding, there are also essential issues here which are not implicated by that proceeding.

As noted by Plaintiff, a blanket stay of proceedings until the resolution of the criminal proceeding at some uncertain time will substantially prejudice Plaintiff and the fair prosecution of her case because any stay will “increase the danger of prejudice resulting from the loss of evidence, including the inability of witnesses to recall specific facts, or the possible death of a party.” (Avant!, supra, 79 Cal. App. 4th at 887.)  Plaintiff has a right to resolution of her dispute and could be greatly prejudiced by an indefinite stay of this proceeding through no fault of her own.

Based on the foregoing, Moving Defendants’ motion for a stay of proceedings is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  September    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.