DAVIS vs JACKSON, et al.

them was another vehicle driven by Sophia Ortiz (“Ortiz”). Ortiz was attempting to shepherd the disabled vehicle being pushed. Defendant Jackson made contact with the back of Ortiz’s car. Ortiz’s car then struck Plaintiff.

On March 11, 2025, Jackson was charged with a misdemeanor count of driving under the influence in violation of California for the same accident – The People of the State of California v. Joseph Michael Jackson, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 25MI004317. (Declaration of Sven Peterson (“Peterson Decl.”), ¶ 3, Ex. B.)

Plaintiff filed this personal injury action against Defendants on May 27, 2025, alleging causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence.

Defendants move to stay all civil proceedings until the criminal proceeding against Jackson has concluded.

Plaintiff has opposed.

“‘The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings.’ (Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision (9th Cir. 1995) 45 F.3d 322, 324.) Keating observed that the question of whether a civil proceeding should be stayed pending the outcome of a parallel criminal proceeding often rests not on the constitutional issue of self-incrimination, but on the issue of abuse of discretion. ‘In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, [simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our jurisprudence.’ ‘Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings ... when the interests of justice seem[] to require such action.’ [Citations.] (Ibid.)” (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885.)

As noted by the California Court of Appeal in Avant!, the Ninth Circuit further stated in Keating that the decision to stay civil proceedings turns on “the particular circumstances and competing interests involved in the case,” including 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. (Avant!

Corp., supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at 885 (citing Keating, supra, 45 F.3d at 324-325).) The Avant! court also noted that a defendant “has no absolute right not to be forced to choose between testifying in a civil matter and asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege” and that “it is permissible to conduct a civil proceeding at the same time as a related criminal proceeding, even if that necessitates invocation of the Fifth Amendment

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012535: DAVIS vs JACKSON, et al. 04/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings in Department 16C

privilege.” (Id., at 885-886 (citing Keating, supra, at 326 and Baxter v. Palmigiano (1976) 425 U.S. 308, 318).) The Fifth Amendment privilege “can be claimed by both parties and witnesses in all manner of civil cases.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1980) 117 Cal.App.3d 57, 62.)

Defendants rely upon the Fifth Amendment privilege and Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686 (Pacers) in support of the requested stay. In Pacers, the court concluded that a stay of discovery “is in accord with federal practice where it 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, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at p. 690.)

Defendants argue proceeding with the civil action while the criminal action is pending would cause Jackson undue prejudice and infringe upon his Fifth Amendment privilege because he would be forced to either participate in the civil discovery process, which may be used against him in the criminal investigation and proceeding, or decline to participate due to fear of self-incrimination, thereby leaving himself without a meaningful defense. Defendants contend any potential prejudice to Plaintiff is outweighed by Jackson’s right against self-incrimination.

Defendants further assert a stay is in the interest of judicial economy because without a stay the Court can anticipate time consuming discovery motions from Plaintiff in response to Jackson’s repeated assertions of the Fifth Amendment privilege. Lastly, Defendants posit there is no indication a stay would adversely impact the interests of any third parties and it is in the public’s interest that the right against self-incrimination is upheld.

At the outset, the Court is not persuaded that the action should be stayed as to codefendant Cancilla, who faces no criminal proceedings and whose Fifth Amendment privilege is not implicated. The Complaint only alleges that Cancilla owned and entrusted the vehicle to Jackson, giving rise to independent theories of liability. There are no allegations in the Complaint that Cancilla was a passenger in the vehicle or witnessed the motor vehicle accident. Defendants raise no argument in their moving papers as to why the action cannot proceed as to Cancilla.

On reply, Defendants assert discovery aimed at Cancilla regarding the accident, Jackson’s actions, and Jackson’s alcohol history (if any) will implicate the same facts at issue in the criminal case against Jackson. While that may be the case, the theories of liability as to Cancilla are distinct from the claims against Jackson and the Court concludes that discovery can proceed as to Cancilla with limited impact on Jackson’s criminal case. Therefore, the motion to stay as to co-defendant Cancilla is DENIED.

As to Jackson, Plaintiff asserts the balance tips in his favor because the accident occurred on June 1, 2024, and by the time of this hearing nearly two years will have

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012535: DAVIS vs JACKSON, et al. 04/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings in Department 16C

passed and further delay will cause significant prejudice to him. He asserts that witness recollections may deteriorate with time, evidence may be lost or destroyed, there is no concrete timeline for when the criminal matter will resolve and it has already been pending for a year, and every month of delay is another month that he is denied access to compensation.

Plaintiff also argues there are more narrow alternatives to issuing a complete stay, including Jackson asserting the privilege only as to specific discovery questions, the Court issuing a protective order limiting the use of Jackson’s civil discovery responses in the criminal proceeding, or staying only Jackson’s deposition while allowing other discovery to proceed. Moreover, Plaintiff contends the criminal proceeding involves only misdemeanor DUI charges, which involves a lesser criminal sentence than, for example, a felony.

The Court is not persuaded that a stay of the entire action is warranted and agrees with Plaintiff that more narrowly tailored alternatives are available. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to stay the entire action is DENIED.

However, the Court finds that Jackson’s defense in his criminal action may be compromised if he is forced to proceed with civil discovery in this action, which arises from the same accident. If discovery proceeds as to Jackson, judicial efficiency and economy will also be affected as Jackson is likely to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege in response to many questions, which will likely lead to numerous discovery motions and disputes for the Court to resolve. Further, Plaintiff’s claims of prejudice are speculative and while the accident may have occurred in June of 2024, Plaintiff did not file this action until May 27, 2025, less than one year ago.

Thus, Plaintiff’s actions have contributed to the claimed two-year period of delay. That the misdemeanor DUI has been pending for one year already also suggests that it will likely resolve sooner, rather than later. Based on the foregoing, any discovery or deposition as to Jackson is stayed until the criminal action is resolved. However, this stay does not apply to third-party discovery.

Defendants are directed to notify the Court upon disposition of the criminal action. In the event the criminal action is not concluded by October 30, 2026, the parties shall file a joint status statement advising the Court of the status of the criminal action. The Court hereby sets a status conference for Thursday, November 5, 2026, in Department 16C.

The parties may move at any time to lift the stay through a properly noticed motion.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012535: DAVIS vs JACKSON, et al. 04/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings in Department 16C

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID 16030877014. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.

Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.