ROMERO vs S V RECYCLING, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV019463: ROMERO vs S V RECYCLING, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings in Department 8C

forthwith to advise of Local Rule 1.06, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely, in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants S V Recycling and Sergio Valdez’s (“Valdez”) (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to stay the proceedings in this action pending a criminal investigation is ruled upon as follows.

In this employment action, Plaintiff Christina Romero (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she began working for S V Recycling in or about February 2024. (Compl., ¶ 7.) On June 3, 2025, Plaintiff noticed a phone in the single, private restroom for employees. (Id. ¶¶ 8–9.) Plaintiff saw that the phone was recording video, and Plaintiff determined the phone belonged to Valdez, the owner of S V Recycling. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 10.) Plaintiff was disturbed and disgusted and immediately left work. (Id. ¶ 11.)

Plaintiff filed her Complaint on August 15, 2025, alleging causes of action for invasion of privacy, constructive discharge, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff also filed a police report. (Compl., ¶ 15.)

On April 27, 2026, Defendants’ counsel confirmed that the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office had a warrant to search S V Recycling’s premises and to seize Valdez’s phone. (Porter Decl., ¶ 3.) The parties have engaged in discovery, and Defendants have responded with all “non-privileged documents and information in their possession, custody, or control.” (Id. ¶ 2.) Mr. Valdez’s deposition was scheduled for July 1, 2026. (Ibid.)

Defendants move to stay the civil proceedings pending the criminal investigation. Plaintiff opposes the stay.

“The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings.” (Avant! Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885 (Avant!).) “‘In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, [simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV019463: ROMERO vs S V RECYCLING, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings in Department 8C

under our jurisprudence.’ [Citation.] ‘Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings ... “when the interests of justice seem[] to require such action.”’ [Citations.]” (Ibid. [quoting Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision (9th Cir. 1995) 45 F.3d 322, 324.) A court has broad discretion to create an appropriate remedy with “a view toward accommodating the interests of both parties, if possible.” (Pacers, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690; Fuller v. Super. Ct. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 310 (Fuller).)

The decision to stay civil proceedings turns on “the particular circumstances and competing interests involved in the case.” (Avant!, supra, at p. 885.) The court

should consider the extent to which the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights are implicated along with five additional factors: (1) plaintiff’s interest in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any 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. [quoting Keating, supra, 45 F.3d at pp. 324–325].) The court need not consider each factor explicitly. (In re Alpha Media Resort Investment Cases (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1121, 1134, fn. 10.)

Defendants argue that staying the case is appropriate because Valdez would be forced to choose between defending in this civil case but potentially exposing himself to criminal charges or invoking his privilege against self-incrimination. Defendants also contend that the criminal investigation has presented a conflict of interest for Defendants’ counsel and that staying the case will allow time for Defendants to obtain separate counsel.

Plaintiffs argue in response that Valdez’s ability to invoke the privilege is sufficient protection in itself because a court is prevented form drawing adverse inferences under Evidence Code section 913. Plaintiffs also note that there is evidence only of a criminal investigation, not a criminal indictment.

Valdez raises a substantial concern. Although the trier of fact may not draw adverse

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV019463: ROMERO vs S V RECYCLING, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings in Department 8C

inferences from the assertion of a privilege, the privileged nondisclosure of facts may be grounds for barring a party from asserting defenses based on those facts. (Steiny & Co., Inc. v. Cal. Electric Supply Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 285, 292.) “Courts recognize the dilemma faced by a defendant who must choose between defending the civil litigation by providing testimony that may be incriminating on the one hand, and losing the case by asserting the constitutional right and remaining silent, on the other hand.” (Fuller, supra, at p. 306.) The fact that criminal charges have not been filed does not negate the dilemma. (See Pacers, Inc. v. Super. Ct., supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at pp. 689–690 [approving stay of proceedings when criminal file remained “open” but without indictment].)

Weighing against Valdez’s concern are the Plaintiff’s and the Court’s interests in fair and timely resolution of this matter. Evidence may be lost over time, and Valdez could assert privilege during discovery but later waive the privilege, causing unfair surprise. (Avant!, supra, at p. 887; Fuller, supra, at p. 306.) The Court has a statutory duty to eliminate delay in resolution of civil matters. (See e.g., Gov. Code, §§ 68607.) Additionally, other employees of S V Recycling may have a particular interest in the outcome of this case, and the public has a general interest in the civil resolution of disputes. (Avant!, supra, at p. 888–889.)

As to the burden on co-Defendant S V Recycling of a conflict of interest for Defendants’ counsel, the Court believes this can be resolved in the usual manner of consensual attorney substitution or motion to be relieved.

On balance, the Court is not persuaded that a full stay of the proceedings is appropriate. S V Recycling, an alleged business entity (Compl., ¶ 2), has no privilege against self-incrimination. (Avant!, supra, at p. 886.) To the extent discovery propounded on S V Recycling could intrude into Valdez’s privileged information, S V Recycling can identify an officer, employee, or agent without privilege concerns to respond to discovery. (Id. at pp. 887–888.) Likewise, the Court discerns no reason why non-party discovery should be stayed. Allowing discovery to continue as to S V Recycling and non-parties allays concerns about witnesses’ fading memories or loss of evidence.

That said, the Court finds that staying discovery against Valdez reasonably accommodates both parties’ interests. The stay relieves Valdez of potentially being prejudiced for asserting a right. And if discovery were to proceed, Valdez may assert his

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV019463: ROMERO vs S V RECYCLING, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings in Department 8C

privilege, leading to numerous disputes requiring Court resolution. (See Fuller, supra, at p. 305 [court must determine whether privilege applies].) But the Court finds a stay of indefinite duration is inappropriate. Neither party has cited any statute of limitations that may apply to potential criminal charges. A stay “pending the criminal investigation” could last for several years, which the Court does not believe to be justified at this time.

An Initial Case Management Conference is presently scheduled for October 20, 2026. The Court orders that discovery be stayed only as to co-Defendant Valdez until October 20, 2026. In addition to their standard case management statement, the parties shall file a joint status report on the criminal investigation or proceedings. Unless lifted or extended by the Court or written stipulation of the parties, the stay will expire on October 20, 2026.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)