Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV01424, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCV01424 Hearing Date: March 5, 2024 Dept: A
23CMCV01424
Christian Garza, et al. v. Tesla, Inc., et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING
IN PART MOTION BY DEFENDANT, OSWALDO LOPEZ, TO STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF
CRIMINAL CASE
I.
BACKGROUND
The
complaint alleges Plaintiffs were injured when Defendant, Cameron Dayne
(“Dayne”), while in the course and scope of employment with Fifth Third Bank,
National Association (“Employer”), crashed into Plaintiffs’ vehicle. Another
driver, Oswaldo Lopez (“Lopez”) was allegedly driving his vehicle while
intoxicated. Plaintiff, Christian Garza, sustained injury requiring double
amputation above the knee. Plaintiffs
also assert product liability claims against Defendant, Tesla Inc. (“Tesla”) for
defective design and manufacture of the Tesla Model 3, which allegedly
malfunctioned.
Defendant
Lopez requests an order staying this action until the criminal case against him
is concluded in order to protect his constitutional rights against self-incrimination.
The criminal action arises from the same accident at issue in this case. Plaintiffs
will not suffer any prejudice as there is no significant risk that witnesses,
or evidence will disappear.
In
opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Lopez does not have an absolute blanket right
to stay the entire case. If Lopez invokes his Fifth Amendment rights, the court
can determine at that time whether the privilege should apply. There are other
defendants in this action who are not affected by Lopez’s criminal matter.
In
reply, Lopez argues that he will be compelled to assert his right against
self-incrimination in written discovery and oral depositions. A preliminary
hearing settlement conference is set for February 28, 2024. Lopez will update
the court at the time of the hearing on this motion.
II.
DISCUSSION
A
person has a privilege to refuse to disclose matters that may tend to
incriminate him. (Evid.
Code, § 940.) The trial court has discretion to stay the entire action
until the outcome of a parallel criminal proceeding after consideration of
certain factors while also acknowledging that it is “permissible to conduct a
civil proceeding at the same time as a related criminal proceeding, even if
that necessitates invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege.” (Avant!
Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885)
The
court conducts a “particularized inquiry” of (1) the plaintiffs’ interests 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. (Avant!
at 887.)
A stay
is not constitutionally required. (Avant!
at 886.) However, since a defendant’s silence is constitutionally
guaranteed, the court can fashion any remedy that justice requires, including
staying civil proceedings, postponing civil discovery, or imposing protective
orders and conditions as required by the interests of justice. (Id.)
Plaintiffs
have an interest in proceeding expeditiously in the resolution of their case.
However, "the court should weigh the parties' competing interests with a
view toward accommodating the interests of both parties, if possible. An order
staying discovery until expiration of the criminal statute of limitations would
allow real parties to prepare their lawsuit while alleviating petitioners'
difficult choice between defending either the civil or criminal case." (Pacers,
Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690 [Postponing
petitioner’s depositions "will cause inconvenience and delay to real
parties; however, protecting a party's constitutional rights is
paramount."].)
A stay
of the entire case is not warranted given that the complaint asserts different
theories of liability which do not implicate Lopez, Dayne, or Dayne’s employer.
Plaintiffs assert claims for negligence and products liability against Tesla an
allegedly defective vehicle.
Lopez generally
asserts without elaboration in reply that a stay of the action against Lopez
only will place him behind the “eight-ball” with respect to the conduct of his
own discovery. (Reply, 2:25-27.) Without more, the argument is not persuasive.
III.
CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, the court is inclined to GRANT the motion for a stay limited
to the claims against Lopez, Dayne, and the employer, but permit Plaintiffs to pursue
their product liability claims against Tesla. Lopez informs that a preliminary
hearing setting conference is set to take place on February 28, 2024, in the
criminal matter at which time, if the matter is not settled, a hearing date
will be set. (Mot. 2:8-10.) Lopez intends to provide an update regarding the status
of the criminal matter.
The
resolution of the criminal proceeding is relevant to the disposition of this
motion. Accordingly, the court will hear from the parties regarding the criminal
case’s status and its effect on this motion.