Angelita R. Leyvas v. Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital
Case No: 18CV05878
Hearing Date: Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion: Order Staying the Pending Civil Action

CASE:

Angelita R. Leyvas v. Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital, Case No. 18CV05878 (Judge Sterne)

HEARING DATE: September 23, 2019

MATTER: Motion for Order Staying Action

ATTORNEYS:

Brian K. O’Connor for Plaintiff Angelita R. Leyvas

Maureen E. Clark for Defendant Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion for order staying the action pending resolution of the parallel criminal case is granted. The parties are ordered to appear in this department for Case Management Conference on November 25, 2019, at 8:30 a.m., to advise the court of the status of the criminal proceedings.

BACKGROUND:

On December 3, 2018, plaintiff filed her complaint for general negligence and premises liability against defendant Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital. According to the allegations, on December 6, 2017, plaintiff was a patient and unconscious in defendant’s emergency room facility when another patient, Jason Dalseme (“Dalseme”), entered her room and proceeded to sexually assault and molest her for almost three hours. Plaintiff alleges that defendant failed to use reasonable care in providing adequate security staff to observe, control, and protect plaintiff.

There is a criminal action pending against Dalseme based on the same facts alleged in the complaint. Dalseme’s attorney has advised defendant that his client will invoke his Fifth Amendment rights and will refuse to testify if subpoenaed for deposition until after the criminal case is resolved. (Clark Dec., ¶3.) The criminal case is scheduled for readiness and settlement conference on October 7, 2019, at which time it is expected that a trial date will be set. (Clark Dec., ¶5.) Because of the pending criminal case, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department has refused to release any of its records pursuant to a subpoena issued by defendant. (Ibid.) Given these developments, the parties to the civil case have agreed to a stay of the action, including all discovery, until the criminal case is concluded. (Clark Dec., ¶6.)

ANALYSIS:

The court is empowered to grant the relief requested. Code of Civil Procedure Section 128 provides:

“(a) Every court shall have the power to do all of the following:

* * *

“(8) To amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice . . . .”

In cases of parallel criminal and civil proceedings, the courts have consistently recognized that the civil action should be stayed where the interests of justice so require, even if the request is made by a party other than the party subject to potential self-incrimination. See, London v. Patterson (9th Cir. 1972) 463 F.2d 95, 98 (holding that postponement of civil proceedings until the conclusion of the related criminal investigation is the preferred alternative to the dilemma facing criminal defendants in a parallel civil case); Wehling v. CBS (5th Cir. 1979) 608 F.2d 1084, 1089 (protection of party’s criminal rights may require staying civil discovery despite resulting inconvenience); Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690 (holding that stay of civil discovery pending completion of parallel criminal investigation was in accord with federal practice).

The court will grant defendant’s motion for stay. The action is ordered stayed for all purposes until the criminal proceedings against Dalseme are concluded. The parties are ordered to appear for Case Management Conference on November 25, 2019, at 8:30 a.m., to advise the court of the status of the criminal matter.