Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 19STCV26723, Date: 2023-08-08 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV26723    Hearing Date: August 8, 2023    Dept: G

Defendant Lucas Doi Fick’s Motion for Stay of Civil Proceedings

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Lucas Doi Fick’s Motion for Stay of Civil Proceedings is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a wrongful death action arising from a tragic double-murder in Covina. On February 19, 2017, Lynda Doi Fick’s (Lynda) son, Lucas Doi Fick (Lucas), came to Lynda’s home and shot Lynda, Nicole Biewener (Biewener), and Donovan Joseph Ramirez (Ramirez) with a gun owned by Lynda. Lynda and Biewener died from their injuries while Ramirez was critically injured. Lucas had prior felony convictions and was involved in a previous incident in December 2016 where Lucas unlawfully discharged a firearm.

On July 31, 2019, Ramirez, individually and as Biewener’s successor in interest, filed a complaint against Lucas, Estate of Lynda Doi Fick (Doi Fick Estate), and Does 1-100, alleging the following causes of action: (1) negligence, (2) assault, (3) battery, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (5) wrongful death.

On November 1, 2019, Ramirez filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC). On November 12, 2020, Ramirez amended the FAC to designate Doe 1 as the Lynda Doi Fick Trust (Doi Fick Trust) and Doe 2 as David Wayne Smith, the trustee of the Doi Fick Trust. On April 26, 2022, Ramirez amended the FAC to designate Doe 3 as the “Estate of Lynda Doi Fick, Deceased.”

On June 15, 2023, Lucas (Defendant) filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for August 8 along with a case management conference and OSC Re: Sanctions for Defendant’s Failure to Appear.

ANALYSIS

Defendant moves to stay proceedings in this action until the resolution of a criminal case against Defendant in People v. Lucas Doi Fick, No. KA114652. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.

Legal Standard

Where a civil defendant faces criminal prosecution based on the same facts as those at issue in the pending civil action, a stay of the civil action until disposition of the criminal matter may be appropriate. (See Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690.) In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the court considers the following factors: “(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, 887.)

Discussion

In this case, Plaintiffs’ wrongful death action arises from a double murder that Defendant allegedly committed. Defendant was arrested and charged with multiple felonies as a result and pled not guilty to all counts with a trial set for January 16, 2024. (Motion, p. 3:2-13.) Because Defendant faces these criminal charges, Defendant should not have to choose between self-incrimination or meaningfully defending this action. The potential exists for “the prosecutors to monitor the civil proceedings hoping to obtain incriminating testimony . . . through civil discovery . . . .” (Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 309, internal quotations omitted.) Because defending this proceeding places significant burdens on Defendant, these burdens warrant a stay. Furthermore, this court is not in receipt of any timely opposition from Plaintiffs.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for a stay of this action is GRANTED.