Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV00440, Date: 2024-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV00440    Hearing Date: November 22, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 11/22/24                                                            TRIAL DATE: 1/27/25

Case #23CHCV00440

MOTION TO LIFT STAY ON DISCOVERY

AS TO DEFENDANT JOSHUA JOHN DUMAS

Ex Parte Application/Motion filed on 11/12/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Alfredo Morales, Leslie Theresa Burrows and Mike Allen Bushaw

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Joshua John Dumas

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order lifting the stay on discovery as to Defendant Joshua John Dumas.   

RULING: The motion is granted.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on 3/6/21 between a vehicle driven by Decedent Eileen Morales (Decedent) and a vehicle driven by Defendant Joshua John Dumas (Dumas).  Decedent died as a result of injuries sustained in the collision.  On 3/8/22, criminal charges for vehicular manslaughter were filed in Los Angeles County against Dumas in case number ATPMA082728-01.   

On 2/16/23, Decedent’s spouse, Alfredo Morales, and children, Leslie Theresa Burrows and Mike Allen Bushaw (collectively, Plaintiffs), filed this action for: (1) wrongful death – negligence against Dumas, (2) wrongful death – negligence against Reman Giroin dba R&H Auto, (3) loss of consortium against all defendants and (4) survival claims against all defendants.  On 7/31/23, Plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal of the complaint as to Reman Giroin dba R&H Auto.

After the parties stipulated to have his default set aside, Dumas answered the complaint on 8/7/23.  (See 8/4/23 Stipulation & Order; Dumas Answer filed 8/7/23).  On 8/14/23, Dumas filed and served a motion seeking an order staying discovery as to Dumas pending resolution of criminal proceedings against Dumas in Los Angeles Superior Court  (ATPMA082728-01).  Plaintiffs opposed the motion.  On 12/5/23, the Court granted Dumas’ motion to stay discovery directed to him.    

Dumas cannot be located, his arrest warrant in the criminal case is still outstanding and there has been no change to the status of the criminal proceeding.  (See Aziev Decl.; Brooks Decl.).  On 11/12/24, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for an order lifting the stay on discovery as to  Dumas.  On 11/12/24, Dumas filed an opposition to the ex parte application.  On 11/13/24, the Court set the matter for a motion hearing on 11/22/24 and ordered a reply to be served and filed by 11/15/24.  On 11/15/24, Plaintiffs filed and served a reply to the opposition. 

ANALYSIS

When deciding whether to stay civil proceedings pending the outcome of a parallel criminal case, courts must consider the interests of and potential prejudice to the plaintiffs in the civil litigation as well as the defendant’s right against self-incrimination.  See Alpha Media Resort Investment Cases (2019) 39 CA5th 1121, 1132; Avant! Corp. (2000) 79 CA4th 876, 882; Fuller (2001) 87 CA4th 299, 306. 

In previously granting Dumas’ motion to stay discovery, the Court presumed that the criminal proceedings against Dumas would be timely resolved.  Instead, the evidence before the Court indicates that Dumas, although aware of this action, has chosen to evade arrest for the criminal charges against him while simultaneously taking advantage of the stay of discovery in this case.  (See Aziev Decl.; Brooks Decl.).

Additionally, Plaintiffs have presented evidence which establishes that Plaintiff Alfredo Morales’ rights may be severely prejudiced if the stay is permitted to indefinitely continue.  Mr. Morales is 91 years-old, in hospice, is bed-ridden, and is showing significant physical and cognitive decline.  (See Aziev Decl., Ex.13).  As such, further delaying discovery and possibly the trial of this matter could result in Mr. Morales not surviving to see his day in court.      

The opposition admits that Dumas is “a fugitive from justice,” “has not appeared in his criminal case,” has been “evading prosecution since March 2022, and remains un-located as of” 11/12/24.  (See Opposition, p.2:17, p.4:17-19; Brooks Decl. ¶19).  As such, any prejudice Dumas might suffer as a result of the stay on discovery against him being lifted is his own making.  In arguing against lifting the stay, the opposition repeatedly states that “Defendants,” plural, have been making considerable efforts to locate Dumas.  (See Opposition, p.2:19-21, p.3:1-3,p.4:14-16).  However, Dumas is the only remaining defendant in this case.  Therefore, he could resolve the efforts to locate himself by turning himself in and answering the pending criminal charges against him.  Instead, by his own admission through the opposition filed on his behalf, he is “a fugitive from justice” and “continues to evade prosecution.”  The opposition argument that Dumas “may not be intentionally avoiding the court but rather unresponsive due to unknown circumstances” is pure unsupported, speculation.  (See Opposition, p.7:3-4).  The court records shows that Dumas is aware of this action as evidenced by his answering the complaint,  responding to discovery (wherein he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at times), and moving to stay discovery.  (See Aziev Decl., Ex.1-7). 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the interests of Plaintiffs and justice weigh in favor of lifting the stay on discovery against Dumas which was previously granted on 12/5/23.  See Polanski (2009) 180 CA4th 507, 533.    

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.