Verdugo v. City of Calexico

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN JOSE GARCIA VERDUGO, Case No.: 3:22-cv-01418-RSH-LR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING JOINT 14 CITY OF CALEXICO; CHIEF MOTION TO STAY GONZALO GERARDO, in his individual 15 and official capacity; and DOES 1 through [ECF No. 10] 16 10, inclusive; 17 Defendants. 18 19 The Parties jointly move the Court to stay this action pending resolution of a criminal 20 proceeding currently pending in the Imperial Superior Court against Plaintiff Juan Jose 21 Garcia Verdugo. ECF No. 10. For the reasons below, the Motion is granted. 22 I. Background 23 On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants the City of 24 Calexico, Calexico Police Chief Gonzalo Gerardo, and Does 1 through 10. ECF No. 1. 25 Plaintiff alleges eight causes of action: (1) a Fourth Amendment violation for excessive 26 force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) a Monell claim for an unconstitutional custom, practice, 27 or policy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) a violation of the Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1; 28 (4) Assault and Battery; (5) Negligence; (6) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Training; 1 (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (8) Negligent Infliction of Emotional 2 Distress. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint is based on his alleged restraint and arrest by 3 Calexico police officers on September 21, 2021. Id. Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s 4 Complaint in this Court is due on December 23, 2022. ECF No. 9. 5 The Imperial County District Attorney filed a felony complaint against Plaintiff on 6 September 28, 2021, in the Imperial County Superior Court of California for resisting arrest 7 by use of force or violence, resisting arrest with removal of a weapon, carrying a concealed 8 knife, and possession of a controlled substance. See People v. Verdugo Garcia, No. 9 JCF005122 (Super. Ct. Imperial Cnty. Sept. 28, 2021). The Parties agree that the charges 10 in Plaintiff’s criminal case arise from the same underlying events as the civil action in this 11 Court. ECF No. 10 at 2. Accordingly, the Parties request that the Court stay Plaintiff’s civil 12 case until the conclusion of his criminal proceedings. Id. at 4. 13 II. Analysis 14 “The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the 15 outcome of criminal proceedings.” Keating v. Off. of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 16 (9th Cir. 1995); see Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 17 1989). “Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil 18 proceedings . . . when the interests of justice seem [ ] to require such action.” Keating, 45 19 F.3d at 324 (quoting Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Dresser Indus., 628 F.2d 1368, 1375 (D.C. 20 Cir. 1980)). However, “[g]enerally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” Dependable 21 Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). 22 When considering a motion to stay civil proceedings, a district court balances: (1) 23 the interests of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously or any potential prejudice to 24 plaintiff from delay, (2) the burden that the proceedings may impose on the defendants, (3) 25 the convenience of the court and the efficient use of judicial resources, (4) the interests of 26 persons not parties to the civil litigation, and (5) the interests of the public in the pending 27 civil and criminal litigation. Keating, 45 F.3d at 324-25. 28 1 All factors lean in favor of staying this case. The Parties’ mutual consent to the stay 2 || mitigates the potential risk of prejudice to either party. The Parties would also be burdened 3 ||if required to litigate this case before Plaintiff's criminal case is resolved. Most notably, 4 || the civil case would burden Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment rights. Finally, a stay will serve 5 || the interests of the public and all persons who are not parties to this case by allowing for 6 || the adjudication of the Parties’ rights without the complication of a parallel proceeding. 7 Conclusion 8 For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay, ECF 9 ||No. 10. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 10 1. This civil action be STAYED for four months from the date of this Order 11 without prejudice to any party seeking to extend the stay. 12 2. The stay of this action automatically be lifted on April 10, 2023, unless a party 13 requests an extension for good cause prior to the stay expiring. 14 3. The Parties notify the Court within 14 days, should Plaintiff's criminal case 15 reach a resolution before the stay expires.! 16 4. Defendants respond to Plaintiff's Complaint within seven days of the stay 17 expiring. 18 SO ORDERED. 19 0 Dated: December 8, 2022 felut ¢ Epona 21 Hon. Robert S.Huie United States District Judge 23 24 25 )=©=)—— 27 Resolution of the criminal case includes a trial resulting in a verdict, the entry of a 28 plea agreement, dismissal of the charges, or Plaintiffs enrollment into any pretrial diversion program.