Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV01797, Date: 2024-03-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV01797 Hearing Date: March 27, 2024 Dept: K
Defendant Noe Leonel Manzanarez’s unopposed Motion
to Stay Discovery Requiring Response from Defendant Noe Leonel Manzanarez Until
Resolution of His Pending Criminal Action is GRANTED.
Background
Plaintiffs Luis Martin Salas, individually and as successor-in-interest to Evelin Guadalupe Salas Melgoza, Ma Del Refugio Melgoza, individually and as successor-in-interest to Evelin Guadalupe Salas Melgoza (together, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:
Plaintiffs
are the parents of Evelin Guadalupe Salas Melgoza (“Evelin”), who died in an
April 27, 2022 motor vehicle collision on the I-10 eastbound freeway.
On June 15, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants Noe Leonel Manzanarez (“Manzanarez”), Luz Hernandez (“Hernandez”) and Dos 1-50 for:
1.
Negligence
2.
Negligent Entrustment
3.
Negligence
A Case Management Conference is set for March 27, 2024.
“When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 187).
“Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Frieberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489).
Discussion
Manzanarez moves the court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 187 and the court’s inherent authority, for an order staying discovery requiring a response from him in this action until the resolution of his pending criminal action (i.e., People of the State of California v. Manzanarez, Case No. XEAKA130182-01) (“Criminal Action”).
Manzanarez asserts that the requested stay is needed to protect his Fifth Amendment rights in connection with the Criminal Action, both of which arise out of the April 27, 2022 motor vehicle collision. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads that “[n]o person. . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The Fifth Amendment is made applicable to California by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 878, 886.) Further, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution provides, in relevant part, that “[p]ersons may not. . . be compelled in a criminal cause to be a witness against themselves.” Evidence Code § 940 provides that “[t]o the extent that such privilege exists under the Constitution of the United States or the State of California, a person has a privilege to refuse to disclose any matter that may tend to incriminate him.”
“[W]hen both civil and criminal proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, an objecting party is generally entitled to a stay of discovery in the civil action until disposition of the criminal matter.” (Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690).
Manzanarez’s counsel Megan K. Hawkins (“Hawkins”) represents that she is informed and believes that Manzanarez has been charged in the Criminal Action in connection with the April 27, 2022 incident with violations of (1) Penal Code section 187(A) (murder); (2) Penal Code section 191.5(a) (gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated); (3) Vehicle Code section 23153(A) (driving under the influence of alcohol causing bodily injury) and (4) Vehicle Code section 23153(B) (driving under the influence with 0.08% alcohol causing bodily injury) (collectively, “the criminal charges”), that Manzanarez has pled “not guilty” to the criminal charges, that a pretrial conference is currently set for January 18, 2024 and that Manzanarez is currently in custody at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility. (Hawkins Decl., ¶ 7). Hawkins has also attached copies of the Criminal Case Summary for the criminal action, as well as the Inmate Booking Record Details for Manzanarez as Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively. (Id., ¶ 6). Hawkins notes that Plaintiff Luis Martin Salas has propounded on Manzanarez Special Interrogatories, Set One which require Manzanarez to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and that she believes it is likely Plaintiffs will soon propound additional discovery on Manzanarez and will notice his deposition if the instant motion is not granted. (Id., ¶¶ 9 and 10, Exh. 4.) Hawkins also points out that no trial or related dates have yet been set in the instant case. (Id., ¶ 8).
Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion, to date (i.e., as of March 18, 2024, 1:30 p.m.; due March 14, 2024). In fact, the parties’ joint Case Management Statement filed March 12, 2024 contains the following statement set forth in Paragraph 18 (i.e., “Other issues”):
The parties cannot engage in meaningful mediation without completing
discovery,
which cannot be completed when the criminal trial is still pending.
The parties understand that
Defendant Manzanrez [sic] has a Fifth Amendment
right against self-incrimination,
which has been exercised in response to certain
discovery requests made by
Plaintiff. In an effort to avoid unnecessary motion
practice and expenditure of
court resources, the parties have agreed to a stay
with the hope that discovery in
this matter can commence following the
completion of the criminal
matter.
(emphasis added.)
The motion, then, is granted.