Torres v. Reveles, et al

13. Torres v. Reveles, et al, Case No. CIVSB2508211 Defendants’ Motion to Stay Civil Proceedings 8/21/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

The Court would GRANT this unopposed motion.

Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the California Constitution requires a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of a criminal proceeding, and simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings are unobjectionable unless they result in substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties. (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885.)

However, “[h]istorically, courts have devised a number of procedures designed to accommodate the specific circumstances of the case.” (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 882.) “One accommodation is to stay the civil proceeding until disposition of the related criminal prosecution.” (Avant!, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 882, citing People v. Coleman (1975) 13 Cal.3d 867, 885.) Another possibility is to allow the civil defendant to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, even if doing so may limit the defendant’s ability to put on a defense.” (Ibid.)

Other accommodations have included conferring an immunity on the party invoking the privilege or precluding a litigant who claims the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination in discovery from waiving the privilege and testifying at trial to matters upon which the privilege had been asserted. Each of these procedural tools is devised based on the circumstances of the particular case. “The alleviation of tension between constitutional rights has been treated as within the province of a court’s discretion in seeking to assure the sound administration of justice.” (Avant!, supra, at p. 882, quoting from People v.

Coleman, supra, at p. 885.)”

In this case, Defendant Perez was arrested and charged in Case No. FSB25000519. He argues that a stay is necessary to preserve his 5th Amendment privilege, as inquiries in this matter necessarily overlap with this wrongful death action.

Importantly, Plaintiff has not submitted an opposition to this motion. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed consent to the granting of the motion. (Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c); also Giles v. Horn (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 206,228 [challenge to judicial notice motion forfeited by failure to file opposition].) Thus, the Court would grant this motion.

*** *** *** 14. Rodriguez v. Ramirez, et al, Case No. CIVSB2603109 Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Complaint 7/16/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

This matter was continued from its original date of July 16, 2026

Tentative Rulings

The Court would DENY.

Case Summary

This is an automobile accident, personal injury case. Plaintiff alleges that he was injured in an automobile accident that was caused by Defendant on July 20, 2025. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant

2