Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV41392, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV41392    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: December 6, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Stay

Moving Party: Defendants Alexander R. Baldwin III and El Dorado Pictures, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Serge Svetnoy

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY IS GRANTED. THE CASE IS STAYED AS TO BALDWIN AND EL DORADO PICTURES ONLY.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

“‘The Constitution does not require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings.’”  (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 886 (quoting Afro-Lecon, Inc. v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. 1987) 820 F.2d 1198, 1202).)  “‘A court, however, has the discretion to stay civil proceedings, postpone civil discovery, or impose protective orders and conditions ‘‘when the interests of justice seem [] to require such action, sometimes at the request of the prosecution, . . . sometimes at the request of the defense[.]’’’” (Id. (quoting Afro-Lecon, Inc., supra, 820 F.2d at 1202).) 

“The determination of whether to stay an action pending resolution of criminal proceedings should be made in light of the particular circumstances and competing interests involved.”  (People ex rel. Harris v. Rizzo (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 921, 952.)  “The decisionmaker should consider the extent to which Fifth Amendment rights are implicated.”  (Id.)  “In addition, factors to be considered include: (1) the interest of the party opposing the stay in proceeding expeditiously with the action, and the potential prejudice to the party opposing the stay of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on the party seeking the stay; (3) the convenience to the court in 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 cases.”  (Id.)  “While the privilege against self-incrimination is a factor to be considered, the issue of a stay itself does not implicate constitutional issues.”  (Id.; see also Avant! Corp., supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at 882 (“‘[I]t is not unconstitutional to force a litigant to choose between invoking the fifth amendment in a civil case, thus risking a loss there, or answering the questions in the civil context, thus risking subsequent criminal prosecution. [Citations.]’” (quoting Brock v. Tolkow (E.D.N.Y. 1985) 109 F.R.D. 116, 119)).)

Defendants Alexander R. Baldwin III and El Dorado Pictures, Inc. move for a renewed stay of this action pending criminal proceedings in New Mexico against Defendant Baldwin. On January 4, 2024, the Court stayed this action against Baldwin and El Dorado because Baldwin faced a possible criminal trial. On July 31, 2024, after two days of trial, the New Mexico court dismissed the case against Baldwin with prejudice. This Court then lifted the stay in this action, on August 16, 2024.

Defendants again move for a stay of this action because the prosecutor in the criminal case is appealing the dismissal. Defendants represent that on November 21, 2024 the special prosecutor filed a notice of appeal of the New Mexico court’s orders dismissing the criminal case against Baldwin and denying the special prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration. Defendants assert that a stay of the case in this Court is necessary to continue to protect Baldwin’s Fifth Amendment rights. In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff will be prejudiced by a delay in adjudicating this case.

The filing of the notice of appeal shows that the criminal proceedings in New Mexico may not have concluded. If the New Mexico Court of Appeals reverses the trial court’s dismissal, the criminal case against Baldwin would be reinstated, and Baldwin again would face the dilemma discussed in this Court’s January 4, 2024 order:

Statements made by Baldwin in this case – at a deposition, for example – could be used against him in the criminal proceedings; conversely, asserting his Fifth Amendment right could be used against him in this civil case. Either way, the prejudice to Baldwin could be extreme. Protecting a party’s constitutional right is “paramount.” Pacers, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1984) 162 Cal. App. 3d 686, 690; see also S.E.C. v. Nicholas (C.D. Cal. 2008) 569 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1070.

(1/4/24 Minute Order, at 2.)

Under these circumstances. the Court finds that a renewed stay as to moving Defendants is appropriate. The potential prejudice to moving Defendants without a stay is high, and the potential prejudice to Plaintiff of a stay is relatively low.

Defendants’ motion for stay is GRANTED.