Case Number: BC614653 Hearing Date: March 22, 2018 Dept: A

# 14. Anna Marie Castorena v. Western Pride, Inc., et al.

Case No.: BC614653

Matter on calendar for: Hearing on motion to stay all civil proceedings

Tentative ruling:

The Court was prepared to rule on this motion on January 30, 2018; the Court did not rule because the parties represented that they had settled the case as to some defendants, and were discussing settlement with the remaining defendants. The matter was continued to this date; no new documents have been submitted. The Court therefore re-posts its tentative ruling.

In this wrongful death action, Defendant Wesley Blake allegedly was driving a tractor with a container atop his trailer when that container clipped the bottom of an overpass, dislodged, fell onto the adjacent sidewalk, and killed Robert Castorena.

Blake was driving on behalf of Defendant Brindley Transportation, and the vehicle Blake was driving was owned by Defendant Western Pride, Inc.

On May 10, 2017, the Los Angeles District Attorney filed criminal charges (vehicular manslaughter) against Blake arising from this incident.

Defendants Blake, Brindley, and Western Pride move to stay all civil proceedings, including discovery, pending resolution of the criminal matter.

Defendant Fast Lane Transportation, Inc. filed a notice of joinder to Defendants’ motion.

Moving Defendants cite to Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690: “[I]t has been held that when 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.” The Pacers court also stated: “To allow the prosecutors to monitor the civil proceedings hoping to obtain incriminating testimony from petitioners through civil discovery would not only undermine the Fifth Amendment privilege but would also violate concepts of fundamental fairness.” (Id.)

Moving Defendants argue that Blake would assert his Fifth Amendment privilege if no stay is imposed, “thereby frustrating his own defense… also frustrating the case for all parties given that Blake is the key witness in this accident.” (Motion, 4:16-17.)

Moving Defendants also contend that, because Brindley and Western Pride have been sued on a vicarious liability theory, Brindley and Western Pride’s defenses depend on Blake’s testimony and discovery responses. Brindley and Western Pride argue they cannot present adequate defenses if Blake is unable to substantively testify.

Plaintiff Ann Marie Castorena argues in opposition: (1) Blake’s anticipated assertion of his Fifth Amendment right is speculative; and (2) Brindley and Western Pride are not subject to criminal prosecution, so the civil action should continue against them.

The Court finds Defendants’ arguments more persuasive. The Court finds that, in light of the pending criminal action, and given the allegations in this case, the possibility of Blake’s asserting his right against self-incrimination is not speculative. The Court grants the motion as to Blake. (Pacers, Inc., supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at 690.)

The Court also grants the motion as to Brindley and Western Pride. Defendants have shown that Brindley and Western Pride cannot present adequate defenses absent Blake’s participation (since Blake is purportedly the only witness with personal knowledge of the key facts of the incident). Although Fast Lane failed to state any basis for its joinder, the Court also will stay the proceedings concerning Fast Lane, as it would be impractical for it to proceed while the case is stayed as to the other defendants.