Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 22STCV01099 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV01099, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01099 Hearing Date: October 26, 2022 Dept: 29

Nichelle Thompson, et al. v. Nicolas Sloan

Motion to Stay Proceedings During Pendency of Criminal Charges filed by Defendant Nicholas Sloan

TENTATIVE

Defendant Nicholas Sloan’s motion for a stay of proceedings is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

Our Supreme Court has long recognized that a trial court must balance competing interests when a defendant in a civil action is also a defendant in a parallel criminal proceeding: “[T]roublesome is the plight of a defendant in a criminal prosecution who must also defend against civil proceedings involving the same facts. [¶] ‘There may be cases where the requirement that a criminal defendant participate in a civil action, at peril of being denied some portion of his worldly goods, violates concepts of elementary fairness in view of the defendant's position in an inter-related criminal prosecution. On the other hand, the fact that a man is indicted cannot give him a blank check to block all civil litigation on the same or related underlying subject matter. Justice is meted out in both civil and criminal litigation. The overall interest of the courts that justice be done may very well require that the compensation and remedy due a civil plaintiff should not be delayed (and possibly denied). The court, in its sound discretion, must assess and balance the nature and substantiality of the injustices claimed on either side.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Coleman (1975) 13 Cal.3d 867, 884-885.)

“‘The decision 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.’ [Citation.] This means the decisionmaker should consider “the extent to which the defendant's fifth amendment rights are implicated.” [Citation.] In addition, the decisionmaker should generally consider 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. [Citation.]’” (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885.)

Discussion

This action arises from a motor vehicle vs. pedestrian accident that occurred August 1, 2021, resulting in the death of Plaintiff’s son. Criminal charges were brought against Defendant for second degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and driving under the influence of alcohol. The criminal action is currently pending. Consequently, Defendant now moves for a stay of proceedings in this action pending the resolution of the criminal action against him.

‘‘In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, [simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our jurisprudence.’ [Citation.] ‘Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings… ‘when the interests of justice seem [ ] to require such action.’’ [Citations.]’ (Ibid.)” (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885 (“Avant!”).)

Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment rights are implicated in the instant civil case. Defendant also argues that a stay of the civil case would not result in any prejudice to the parties. If anything, Plaintiffs would be prejudiced by Defendant’s continued presence in this civil litigation while his criminal case is pending as Plaintiffs would be unable to conduct discovery considering his assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege. The fact that Defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege is implicated here imposes a substantial burden on him because Defendant cannot be expected to answer questions in discovery without fear of self-incrimination. Defendant argues a stay would be consistent with the goals of judicial economy and advancing notions of fairness. Granting a stay until Defendant’s criminal case is resolved would be the most expeditious way to manage this case because it would minimize the likelihood of discovery disputes, any motion to compel, trial continuances, and potential appeals. Additionally, Defendant argues that granting the instant motion would best accord with the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation. Defendant’s invocation of this Fifth Amendment privilege in the civil action is an exercise of his constitutionally protected right to avoid self-incrimination. The Avant! court recognized a party’s exercise of a “constitutionally protected right” as a legitimate public interest. (Avant! Corp. v. Super. Ct., supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 888.)

Plaintiff has filed a declaration of non-opposition because Defendant has asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege in discovery.

The Court finds that the interests of justice tilt in favor of granting a stay, as Plaintiffs do not contend they would be prejudiced, and because Defendant would be prejudiced by answering questions in this case in discovery. Moreover, granting a stay would promote judicial economy and Defendant’s exercise of its right to avoid self-incrimination is a legitimate public interest.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for a stay of proceedings is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.