“The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings…‘In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, [simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our jurisprudence…Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings . . . when the interests of justice seem…to require such action.’”¿ (quoted in Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court, 79 Cal. App. 4th 876, 885 (2000) (quoting Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995)).)  

 The decision of whether to stay civil proceedings in the face of a parallel criminal proceeding should be made in light of the particular circumstances and competing interests involved in the case.¿ (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876.) The trial court should consider the following factors in ruling on a motion to stay pending the resolution of criminal proceedings:¿¿¿ 

¿¿  

¿¿¿  

(Id. at p. 885.)¿¿ 

Defendants seek to stay the entire action or alternatively stay discovery proceedings specific to Barboza on the grounds that Barboza is a defendant in a criminal matter pending before Kern County Superior Court (LM125521A) and pending before Los Angeles County Superior Court (MA084719) that arises out of the same incident as alleged in Plaintiff Bell’s civil action. Preliminary, in relation to MA084719, the Court notes that after the filing of the instant motion, the matter was disposed of on August 10, 2023, wherein Barboza was sentenced to 16 months state prison. Therefore, there is no action pending in Los Angeles County.  

The Court will determine whether a stay is appropriate using the factors set forth in Avant! and Keating. 

Defendants conclusory contend that Barboza’s Fifth Amendment rights are implicated because he is subject to a pending criminal prosecution and is likely to exercise his Fifth Amendment right in the event his deposition is noticed.  

In opposition, Plaintiff Bell asserts that Defendants have not provided sufficient information related to Barboza’s DUI charges in Kern County, when the pre-trial conference and preliminary hearing date has since passed. Additionally, there is no evidence about the outcome and future hearings for Barboza’s pending charges. Plaintiff Bell further argues that discovery has already proceeded, and Barboza provided substantial responses in written discovery. More particularly, Plaintiff Bell contends Barboza directly responded to discovery requests regarding the issue of alcohol consumption prior to the October 14, 2022 incident. Plaintiff Bell avers Barboza has waived his right against self-incrimination by responding to these discovery requests, and that there is no basis to assert the Fifth Amendment.  

The Court reviewed Barboza’s responses to Plaintiff Bell’s special interrogatories. As to each interrogatory requesting Barboza to list any and all alcoholic beverages consumed during the between one to five hours prior to the incident, Barboza responded that he did not consume any alcoholic beverage in that timeframe. Furthermore, Barboza responded that he drank water prior to the incident. The Court is not persuaded that Barboza has waived his right against self-incrimination by providing responses denying allegations that he was driving under the influence at the time of the incident, and neither does Plaintiff Bell support this contention with any relevant authority.  

Nevertheless, Defendants have not sufficiently demonstrated Barboza’s Fifth Amendment rights would be implicated by responding to discovery, because Barboza did respond to discovery. “[T]he privilege is properly invoked whenever the witness’s answers ‘would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute’ the witness for a criminal offense.  [Citation.]”  (People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, 617.)  “[I]t need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.”  (Ibid.) Defendants have offered only conclusory statements. Conclusory statements do not help the Court reach a decision. 

Because Defendants have not shown that Barboza would be compelled to invoke his fifth amendment privileges and possibly submit to civil liability, or risk having any discovery responses potentially used in the criminal trial against him, this factor weighs against a stay. Most importantly, the moving party has simply not provided enough information about the Kern County criminal case. In reply, Defendant provides that the next hearing date is October 17, 2023; however, the reply is silent as to the type of hearing. The Court has absolutely no information before it to help it understand the length of the stay being requested. 

Defendants argue Plaintiff Bell would not be prejudiced in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation, and that instead Plaintiff would be prejudiced by Barboza’s continued presence with a criminal case pending because Plaintiff Bell would be unable to conduct meaningful discovery in light of Barboza’s intention to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege. 

Plaintiff Bell argues this is a consolidated action, and that a stay on the case would prevent Plaintiff Bell and the other named Plaintiffs from litigating their case against all the other defendants. Furthermore, in terms of staying discovery, Plaintiff Bell contends that Barboza stipulated to the consolidation.  

Defendants affirm October 17, 2023 is the next hearing date for the criminal matter pending in Kern County, and affirm that the criminal matter in Los Angeles County had resolved in their reply. The criminal proceeding in Kern County Superior Court is still in its early stages and Defendants fail to provide any details as to how long the stay is likely to be. Thus, a stay is likely to significantly delay litigation in this matter. Because a stay would delay resolution of this dispute and delay the potential recovery of Plaintiff Bell and the other named Plaintiffs in this consolidated action, this factor weighs against a stay. 

Defendants’ argument as to this factor is the same as the first factor. Defendants argue Barboza cannot be expected to answer questions in discovery without fear of self-incrimination in the pending criminal case. However, Barboza already responded to discovery in the civil action.  Defendants argue that Barboza would be forced to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.  

However, Barboza does not have an absolute right not to be forced between testifying in this matter and asserting Fifth Amendment privilege. Litigation in this matter may proceed even if there is a parallel criminal matter pending. This factor does not weigh significantly for a stay. 

Defendants argue a stay would not impact the Court’s management of its cases or judicial resources, because a stay would minimize the likelihood of discovery disputes, additional trial continuances, and potential appeals. Plaintiff Bell does not directly oppose this factor, and merely cites to authority to generally argue that a stay would not promote principles of efficiency. 

This factor does not weigh significantly in favor of or against a stay. 

There is no evidence that persons not parties to the civil litigation would be impacted by a stay.   

Defendants contend Barboza’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege is a constitutionally protected right to avoid self-incrimination. Plaintiff Bell’s only argument is that Defendants must be held accountable for injuries Plaintiff Bell suffered in the two collisions. 

There is no absolute Constitutional right that requires a civil action to be stayed while a concurrent criminal action is pending. This factor does not weigh strongly in favor of or against a stay.  

The factors, overall, weigh against a stay. The evidence shows that this matter involves two different collisions involving a different set of Plaintiffs and different set of Defendants, in which only one action involves a criminal matter. Barboza expressed that he might invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in terms of his deposition, as he already has responded to Plaintiff Bell’s initial written discovery. There is currently no showing that further discovery will likely require significant court intervention to resolve disputes over Barboza’s Fifth Amendment rights. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 31st day of October 2023