Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV27067, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV27067    Hearing Date: May 30, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: May 30, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Stay

Moving Party: Defendants Kamyar Dideban and Hamideh Pourzand

Responding Party: None

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY IS GRANTED.

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. No opposition has been received.

“‘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 move for a stay pending criminal charges against Defendants relating to the same events at issue in this action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to maintain Plaintiff’s rental unit in habitable condition. On March 7, 2025, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office sent a letter to Defendants advising them that charges had been filed for violations of the Municipal Code relating to illegal construction.

As the criminal proceedings remain active and ongoing, the Court finds that a stay as to moving Defendants is appropriate. The potential prejudice to moving Defendants without a stay is high and the potential prejudice to Plaintiff is relatively low. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion to show that a stay should not be granted.

Defendants’ motion for stay is GRANTED.