Martinez-Arias v. Del Carmen Martinez et al.

(35) Tentative Ruling

Re: Martinez-Arias v. Del Carmen Martinez et al. Superior Court Case No. 26CECG01031

Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 (Dept. 502)

Motion: By Defendant Guadalupe Del Carmen Martinez for Stay

Tentative Ruling:

To grant and stay all proceedings, pending final disposition of Fresno Superior Court Case No. F24908581.

To set a status conference for Tuesday, December 1, 2026, 3:30 p.m. in Department 502.

Explanation:

An application for a stay is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. (Thomson v. Continental Ins. Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 738, 746.) An order staying an action until determination of criminal charges allows plaintiff to prepare his or her action “while alleviating [defendant’s] difficult choice between defending either the civil or criminal case.” (See Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690.) The requesting party is generally entitled to a stay in the civil action until disposition of the criminal matter. (See id.)

Here, defendant Guadalupe Del Carmen Martinez (“Defendant”) requests a stay of proceedings. The basis upon which he seeks this relief is due to a parallel criminal proceeding, arising from the same circumstances and among the same parties as the present civil matter.

Plaintiff Jacqueline Martinez-Arias (“Plaintiff”) opposes purely on sufficiency of evidence. Material to this motion, Plaintiff submits that none of the discovery submitted has sufficient foundation. Plaintiff’s Objections, No. 2, 3, and 6 are sustained as to foundation. Objections to the memorandum, which are not evidence, are overruled, at No. 1, 7, and 8. Objections as to the declaration of Scott Levy are overruled, at No. 4 and 5.

Scott Levy submits that he is counsel of record for Defendant in the related criminal matter. He indicates an expectation that the criminal matter may resolves in the next six months. He indicates that if the civil matter proceeds, it will affect Defendant’s ability to receive a fair trial. Based on the above, the court finds sufficient basis to conclude that Defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights as to the criminal matter are implicated in further participating in the present civil matter.

Plaintiff argues that the motion fails to identify what discovery is inculpatory. To direct counsel to single out what may or may not be at issue is itself seeking attorney work product.3

Plaintiff argues that the imposition of a stay would be indefinite and therefore prejudicial. This is not a sufficient reason to invade Defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Plaintiff further argues that the matter should not be stayed as to defendant Rosalio Martinez. The nature of the allegations of the Complaint would still implicate Defendant’s theories of defense, with one additional layer. Whether defendant Rosalio Martinez negligently entrusted a vehicle to Defendant will require a theory as to allegations that Defendant should not have been entrusted with a vehicle.

The entirety of the civil matter is ordered stayed pending final disposition of Fresno Superior Court Case No. F22904843.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: lmg on 8-24-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

3 Moreover, though evidence on reply is generally improper, Defendant submits the nature of

ongoing discovery, which could not ask more inculpatory questions, such as Request for Admission No. 3, “Admit that on July 1, 2024, you consumed alcoholic beverages prior to operating the 2022 Honda Accord on State Route 180” and No. 4., “Admit that on July 1, 2024, you were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the INCIDENT”. 16