Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 19STCV42531, Date: 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV42531    Hearing Date: February 24, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On November 22, 2019, Plaintiffs Streaming IQ Inc., and Moussa Lavaee (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Steven Lin, Keith Hoang, AboveLab Inc., Skisen Corporation, GoJoy Inc., and Kaurat Reserves Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”).

On March 23, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte application to stay this action pending the resolution of criminal proceedings against Lin.

On January 4, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of the search warrant and complaint in the criminal action.  The Court denies the requests as irrelevant.

Defendants also ask the Court to take judicial notice of the complaint in this action.  The Court denies the request as irrelevant; the complaint is already part of this case’s record.

DISCUSSION

“‘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.”’”  (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885.)  The court should “consider ‘the extent to which the defendant’s fifth amendment rights are implicated,’” as well as “‘(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.’”  (Ibid.)

The Complaint alleges that Lin fraudulently induced them to form a company, but Defendants are now wrongfully retaining over $500,000 paid by Plaintiffs.  The criminal action for grand theft is based on the same events.  (See Motion at pp. 2-4.)  Accordingly, Lin’s Fifth Amendment rights are directly implicated in this action.  However, “‘[t]here is no blanket Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions in noncriminal proceedings’ [citation] and that ‘[t]he privilege must be specifically claimed on a particular question and the matter submitted to the court for its determination as to the validity of the claim.’  [Citations.]  This has long been the rule in California with respect to both criminal and civil proceedings.”  (Warford v. Medeiros (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1035, 1044-1045, footnote omitted.)  “[A] litigant’s ‘say-so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination.’”  (Siry Investment, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1098, 1124.)  If Defendants object to certain discovery requests or deposition questions on Fifth Amendment grounds, the Court will conduct a particularized inquiry with respect to each specific claim of privilege to determine whether the privilege applies.  (Ibid.)  Thus, Lin’s rights can still be protected if this litigation proceeds.

Plaintiffs argue that they have a strong interest in proceeding expeditiously because they are victims of fraud and may never be able to recover their money as time passes.  (Motion at p. 6.)  According to Plaintiffs, the criminal action will take four to six years to resolve, and they will be prejudiced by that passage of time.  (See id. at pp. 5-6.)  Because of this uncertain, extended timeline, Plaintiffs will suffer “prejudice resulting from the loss of evidence, including the inability of witnesses to recall specific facts, or the possible death of a party.”  (Clinton v. Jones (1997) 520 U.S. 681, 707-708.)  Additionally, the entity defendants have no constitutional right against self-incrimination, and their discovery can be narrowed to avoid Lin’s self-incrimination.  (Motion at pp. 6-9.)  The Court has an interest in clearing its docket, and there is an overall public interest in bringing timely justice to victims.  (Id. at pp. 9-11.)

After considering the particular circumstances and competing interests involved in this case, the Court concludes that the stay should be lifted.

CONCLUSION

The motion to lift stay is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

         Dated this 24th day of February 2023