Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22GDCV00881, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22GDCV00881    Hearing Date: December 16, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On November 20, 2024, defendant Frunzik Sargsyan (“Sargsyan”) filed this motion for an order temporarily staying this action until the conclusion of the criminal and immigration proceedings brought against him or, in the alternative, for a protective order restricting or limiting any inquiry into the facts relating to matters in the criminal and immigration cases in written discovery or deposition. On December 3, 2024, co-defendant City of Glendale (“Glendale”) filed a response to Sargsyan’s motion stating that a stay of the entire action was appropriate. On December 6, 2024, plaintiffs Krikor Kassabian and Christina Chobanian (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) objected to Glendale’s request for a stay of the entire case. Plaintiffs do not oppose a stay with regard to Sargsyan.

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.” (Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690.)

Here, Sargsyan argues that a stay is appropriate because he has been charged with two felonies for violating Vehicle Code section 20001(b)(2) (felony hit and run) Penal Code section 136.1(b)(1) (dissuading a witness from informing a crime); also, in another case, Sargsyan has been charged with violating Vehicle Code section 2800.2 for evading a police officer. (Motion, p. 3.) As a result of these criminal charges, he was detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and has been detained at ICE facilities. Sargsyan’s counsel, Maria A. Grover (“Grover”), reports that her client is caught in an administrative impasse because the criminal proceedings cannot go forward while he is detained and removal proceedings in immigration court cannot commence until he has been convicted of a crime. (Grover Decl., ¶ 6.) Nowhere in Grover’s declaration does she state that the felony charges are related to the case brought by Plaintiffs. However, given that neither Plaintiffs nor Glendale oppose his request for a stay, the Court GRANTS the motion and STAYS the case only as to Sargsyan for six months, or until Sargsyan’s criminal proceedings have concluded, whichever occurs first.

The Court also sets a status conference for May 16, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. for the parties to provide the Court with an update regarding Sargsyan’s criminal proceedings.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 16th day of December 2024

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.