Citibank, N.A. vs. Lozano, Maria

vicariously liable for Lee's conduct. The court, however, firstly notes that it is plaintiff's burden to establish that Lee was employed with any Ferreira entity, and acting within the course and scope of his employment with that entity at the time of the accident, to establish liability against any such entity.

Secondly, the court fails to see how Lee's testimony would be critical to defendants' position in defending against any such vicarious liability issue presented in this case, as the entity defendants would presumably be the primary and principle sufficient source of information on whether Lee was an employee of any of them.

As to the question indirectly confronted by the entity defendants, and directly confronted by Lee, concerning Lee's liability for his driving conduct, the court is not persuaded, in the absence of an explanation by defendants, that defendants are entirely unable to respond absent Lee's testimony. As plaintiff notes, "[m]otor-vehicle collisions ... are frequently investigated and proven through evidence other than a driver's testimony."

Moreover, as already observed, the Fifth Amendment ultimately does not provide protection against civil penalties to a corporation alleged to be vicariously liable for an employee since "it has no Fifth Amendment interests to protect." (Avant!, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 886.)

At this stage, while the court foresees the possibility that implication of the Fifth Amendment assertions in this case could, at some point, warrant appropriate discovery or other orders, defendants present no specific showing at this stage warranting a blanket stay of the civil case based on the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants.

d. Remaining factors

As to the remaining factors, (i) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; (ii) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (iii) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation, defendants present no especially compelling considerations.

Defendants contend a stay will facilitate convenience in that it will obviate the necessity of "multiple" discovery motions in will be required to file in light of "anticipated discovery." Another, better option, of course, would be for the parties to meet and confer in good faith to obviate the need for such motions. However, if this expects too much, the court is well equipped to handle such matters as they arise. Moreover, as a general matter, " 'convenience of the courts is best served when motions to stay proceedings are discouraged.' " (Avant! Corp., supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 888.)

Defendants present no other meaningful considerations with respect to the interests of non-parties and the public, except to state that such interests, in this case, are "minimal," because "[w]hile [Mr. Terrell's] death is tragic, the public should not be tracking the civil cases filed by Lucinda Terrell and Darrell Terrell [referencing another civil action apparently initiated by the Mr. and Mrs. Terrell's son], and the civil lawsuit will not have any impact on the public as a whole."

The court does not find these considerations tip the balance in favor of granting a stay, and finds, instead, that the interests of third parties who might be called as witnesses would be better served by denial of a stay, so they are not called upon to recall important details long after the relevant events have occurred, and the public has a general, but significant, interest "in a system that encourages individuals to come to court for the settlement of their disputes." (Avant! Corp., supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 889.)

C.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that the motion to stay should be, and therefore is, denied. If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Re: Citibank, N.A. vs. Lozano, Maria Case No.: PCL312597

Date: July 28, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 19-The Honorable Russell P. Burke Motion: Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion and dismiss the case without prejudice.

Facts and Analysis

In this matter, Plaintiff obtained default judgment on June 11, 2025. However, Defendant in this action had passed away in or about February 2025 prior to the entry of the judgment. Plaintiff therefore requests the default and default judgment be set aside and that this case be dismissed with prejudice.

The Court, therefore, grants the motion, vacates default and default judgment and dismisses this matter without prejudice as requested. If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.

Visalia Division Honorable Bret D. Hillman Presiding- Department 2 Examiner notes for probate matters calendared July 29, 2026, that allow for posting: Status: Recommended for Approval (RFA), Appearance Required or Recommended, Approval Conditional Upon, etc.

Case Number | Case Name | Type | Status | Comments | VPR054175 | In the Matter of Garges, Jennie J. | Letters of Administration | Appearance Required | Supplemental Statement of Birth Date and DL Number (DE-147S) not filed, TCSC LR, rule 1000(c)(4) |