Case Number: BC672859 Hearing Date: March 13, 2018 Dept: 53

BRIAN KEYS, et al. VS. the cadillac hotel, et al., BC672859, march 13, 2018

[tentative] order re: defendant sris sinnathamby’s motion for stay of this civil proceeding pending the outcome of criminal action entitled people v. sinnathamby, et al., case no. sa091180-01

Defendant Sris Sinnathamby’s Motion for Stay of this Civil Proceeding Pending the Outcome of Criminal Action Entitled People v. Sinnathamby, et al., Case No. SA091180-01 is DENIED.

background

Plaintiffs Brian Keys (“Keys”) and Maize Baskerville (“Baskerville”) (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) initiated this action on August 17, 2017 by filing a Complaint for Damages asserting various violations of the California Civil Code, battery and assault, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress against Defendants The Cadillac Hotel (the “Hotel”) and Sris Sinnathamby (“Sinnathamby”) (jointly, “Defendants”). The operative First Amended Complaint was filed on January 5, 2018 (“FAC”). The gravamen of the FAC is that Plaintiffs were injured when Sinnathamby, the owner of the Hotel, instructed a security guard Francisco Guzman (“Guzman”) to discharge his weapon during a dispute with various individuals outside the Hotel on August 30, 2015, resulting in the death of one person (“Shakespear”), a gunshot wound to Keys, and minor injuries to Baskerville.

A related criminal action is pending, entitled People v. Sinnathamby, et al., Case No. SA091180-01 (the “Criminal Action”). In June 2016, the court in the Criminal Action held that there was insufficient evidence of probable cause to hold Sinnathamby over for trial but found sufficient probable cause to proceed against Guzman. Guzman’s trial is scheduled to commence on July 24, 2018. (Halbert Decl., Ex. C.)

Sinnathamby now moves to stay all proceedings and discovery in this action pending the outcome of the Criminal Action. The Hotel joins in on Sinnathamby’s motion. Plaintiffs oppose.

Discussion

In arguing that a stay is appropriate, Defendants primarily rely on Pacer’s, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686. In Pacer’s, civil defendants refused to answer deposition questions by invoking their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The trial court subsequently entered an order prohibiting defendants from testifying at trial. The Court of Appeal found that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing an order protecting only the plaintiffs’ interests. The Court noted that the trial court “forced petitioners to choose between their silence and a meaningful chance of avoiding the loss through judicial process of a substantial amount of property.” (Id. at 689 (internal quotations omitted).) The Court held that: “Where, as here, a defendant’s silence is constitutionally guaranteed, the court should weigh the parties’ competing interests with a view toward accommodating the interests of both parties, if possible. An order staying discovery until expiration of the criminal statute of limitations would allow real parties to prepare their lawsuit while alleviating petitioners’ difficult choice between defending either the civil or criminal case.” (Id. at 690.)

The Court in Pacer’s did not hold that a stay should be granted as a matter of course whenever there are pending criminal charges. The law is clear that there is no entitlement to such a stay. (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 882; People v. Coleman (1975) 13 Cal.3d 867, 885 (“Whatever their response to requests for accommodation of the conflicting constitutional rights of a defendant in concurrent civil and criminal proceedings, courts have consistently refrained from recognizing any constitutional need for such accommodation. Rather, the alleviation of tension between constitutional rights has been treated as within the province of a court’s discretion in seeking to assure the sound administration of justice.”); Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision (9th Cir. 1995) 45 F.3d 322, 326 (“A defendant has no absolute right not to be forced to choose between testifying in a civil matter and asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege.”).)

Based on the foregoing authorities, the Court finds that a stay of discovery is not appropriate. Sinnathamby is not the criminal defendant in the Criminal Action, and furthermore, he is not precluded from invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege during discovery. If and when the situation arises, Sinnathamby will have to make that choice and if he chooses to remain silent, to accept the consequences of remaining silent. (See Blackburn v. Superior Court (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 414, 426 (“in a civil case a witness or party may be required either to waive the privilege, or accept the civil consequences of silence if he or she does exercise it”).) As to the Hotel, unlike private individuals, corporations have no privilege against self-incrimination. (Avant! Corp., supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 883.) However, the Court suggests that Sinnathamby’s deposition or responses to discovery be deferred until after the trial in the criminal action.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for a stay of proceedings is DENIED.

Plaintiffs are ordered to provide notice of this ruling.

DATED: March 13, 2018

_____________________________

Howard L. Halm

Judge of the Superior Court