Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV02503, Date: 2024-09-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23TRCV02503 Hearing Date: September 24, 2024 Dept: 8
HEARING DATE: September 24, 2024
CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV02503
CASE NAME: Cleta Diego Gonzalez De Ramirez, et al. v. Jane Khanh Pham, et al.
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Jane Khanh Pham and joinder by Defendant Donna’s Cocktail, Inc.
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Cleta Diego Gonzalez De Ramirez, Isabel Ramirez Diego, Graciela Ramirez Diego, Maynor Ramirez Diego, and Cleta Diego Gonzalez De Ramirez as guardian ad litem for Deysi Ramirez Diego and Saira Ramirez Diego
TRIAL DATE: Not set
MOTION: Motion to Stay Proceedings
Tentative Rulings: GRANTED in part. Defendant’s CMC statement indicates that the criminal case may take 1-2 yeas to resolve, which is an extremely long span of time. The Court hopes to have a more definitive terminus of the criminal proceedings and will call the parties back periodically for updates on the status of the criminal case.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual
On August 2, 2023, Plaintiffs Cleta Diego Gonzalez De Ramirez, Isabel Ramirez Diego, Graciela Ramirez Diego, Maynor Ramirez Diego, and Cleta Diego Gonzalez De Ramirez as guardian ad litem for Deysi Ramirez Diego and Saira Ramirez Diego (“Plaintiffs”) filed this personal injury action against Defendants Defendant Jane Khanh Pham and joinder by Defendant Donna’s Cocktail, Inc. (“Defendants”) for motor vehicle and general negligence.
On January 29, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint alleging the same causes of action.
In the FAC, Plaintiffs allege that on March 17, 2023, Tomas Ramirez (Decedent), was driving southbound on Vermont Ave in his 2006 Honda Civic. Defendant Pham was driving a 2016 Volkswagen Tiguan eastbound on Rosecrans Ave. when she failed to stop at a red light at the intersection of Vermont Ave. and Rosecrans Ave., striking Mr. Ramirez’s vehicle. The FAC alleges that the collision caused the death of Mr. Ramirez, and that Pham was in the course and scope of her employment with Defendant Donna’s at the time of the incident. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Pham was driving under the influence of alcohol after becoming intoxicated during her shift as a bartender at Donna’s with the knowledge, permission and consent of her employer, Donna’s. The FAC also alleges that it was custom and practice for bartenders to drink on the job at Donna’s. (FAC, ¶¶10-11.)
Defendant Pham, and Defendant Donna’s (by joinder), move to stay the case pending resolution of a related criminal case against Pham.
B. Procedural
On August 27, 2024, Defendant Pham filed the instant motion to stay the action pending resolution of criminal proceedings.
On August 28, 2024, Defendant Donna’s filed a joinder to the motion.
On September 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition.
No reply has been filed.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard
In deciding whether to stay proceedings when a civil defendant faces parallel criminal charges, courts engage in a two-step process. First, the decision should be made “‘in light of the particular circumstances and competing interests involved in the case’ . . . This means the decision maker should consider ‘the extent to which the defendant’s fifth amendment rights are implicated.’ [Citation.]” (Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision (9th Cir. 1995) 45 F.3d 322, 324.) Second, the court should consider: “(1) the interest of the plaintiffs 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! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885; Keating, supra, 45 F.3d at p. 325.)
“[I]t has been consistently held that when 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. The rationale of the federal cases is based on Fifth Amendment principles as well as the inherent unfairness of compelling disclosure of a criminal defendant's evidence and defenses before trial.¿Under these circumstances, the prosecution should not be able to obtain, through the medium of the civil proceedings, information to which it was not entitled under the criminal discovery rules.” (Pacers, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690, citations omitted.) “It is not enough that the witness fears incrimination from answering the questions; the fear must be¿reasonable¿in light of the witness's specific circumstances,¿the content of the questions, and the setting in which the questions are asked. In other words, the privilege protects only against ‘real dangers,’ and not ‘remote and speculative possibilities.’¿It is the trial court's function to determine whether such a ‘real danger’ exists.¿‘[Some] discretion must rest in the court whereby it may prevent the mantle of protection from being turned into a cloak for fraud and trickery.’ If the court, in the exercise of its discretion, determines that no threat of self-incrimination is evident, then the burden of showing the danger of self-incrimination shifts to the individual asserting the privilege.” (Troy v. Super. Ct. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1011, quotations and citations omitted, emphasis in original.)
B. Discussion
Defendant Pham has met her burden of proof here on the motion to stay. The civil and criminal proceedings clearly arise out of the same set of facts, and Defendant’s fear of self-incrimination appears to be reasonable in light of these circumstances.
Additionally, to the extent that the parties’ citations to Keating and other cases are relevant, assessment of these factors point in favor of a stay. (Keating, supra, at 324; accord Avant! Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885.) The interest of Plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously and the potential prejudice to Plaintiffs of delay do not outweigh the burden on Defendant Pham that would arise from waiving her privilege against self-incrimination while criminal proceedings on the same issues are ongoing. The Court’s interests are minimal here in comparison to protection of Defendant Pham’s privilege against self-incrimination, and there are at most minimal interests here regarding (1) persons not parties to the civil litigation and (2) the public in the civil and criminal litigation.
The Court GRANTS the motion in part. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs’ argument that the stay should be limited to discovery as to Defendant Pham. Defendant Pham’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to others. If other parties or third parties wish to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, a limited stay does not stop them from doing so. While discovery proceedings against Pham will be stayed, discovery as to other parties and third parties may proceed.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED in part. Discovery as to Defendant Pham is stayed pending resolution of the related criminal proceeding against her.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.