Vargas et al v. County of Yolo et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 3/18/2016 ORDERING that Defendants' 14 Ex Parte Application for Stay is DENIED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

MARIA VARGAS, MARTIN VARGAS,
ANGELICA VARGAS, AUGUSTIN
VARGAS, ARNULFO BERMUDEZ,
JORGE VARGAS, AND PEDRO
GARCIA,

v.

13

15
16

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO
STAY PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiffs,

12

14

No. 2:15-cv-02537-TLN-CKD

COUNTY OF YOLO, YOLO COUNTY
SHERIFF’S OFFICE, EDWARD PRIETO,
HECTOR BAUTISTA, REIKO
MATSUMURA, GARY HALLENBECK
and DOES 1 TO 50,
Defendants.

17
18

This matter is before the Court on an Ex Parte Application for Order to Stay Proceedings

19
20

filed by Defendants County of Yolo, Yolo County Sheriff’s Office, Edward Prieto, Hector

21

Bautista, Reiko Matsumura and Gary Hallenbeck (collectively, “Defendants”). (Defs.’ Ex Parte

22

Appl. for Stay, ECF No. 14.) Plaintiffs Maria Vargas, Martin Vargas, Angelica Vargas, Augustin

23

Vargas, Arnulfo Bermudez, Jorge Vargas, and Pedro Garcia (“Plaintiffs”) oppose the Ex Parte

24

Application to Stay. (Pls.’ Resp. in Opp’n to Defs. Ex. Parte Appl. for Stay, ECF No. 17.)

25
26

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On March 8, 2015, several family members and friends were present at the Vargas

27

residence. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at ¶ 21.) Defendants Hector Bautista, Reiko Matsumura, and

28

Gary Hallenbeck arrived at the Vargas residence. (Answer, ECF Nos. 14 at ¶ 12.) Plaintiffs
1

1

allege Defendants mistreated and wrongfully arrested Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 22–52.) On

2

June 15, 2015, the Yolo County District Attorney executed a criminal complaint against Plaintiffs

3

Maria Vargas and Jorge Vargas. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 57.) Plaintiff Maria Vargas was charged with

4

two counts of Resisting or Obstructing a Peace Officer. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 57.) Plaintiff Jorge

5

Vargas was charged with Resisting an Executive Officer by Means of Threats, Force or Violence

6

and Battery on a Peace Officer. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 57.) Those Charges are currently pending before

7

the Superior Court of California for the County of Yolo, Case No. 15003411. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 57.)
Defendants filed their Ex Parte Application for Stay on February 17, 2016. (ECF No. 14.)

8
9
10
11

Defendants request that the Court stay this case until the related criminal cases are concluded.
(ECF No. 14 at 1.)
II.

STANDARD OF LAW
A district court weighs the following factors when considering a motion to stay: “the

12
13

possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or inequity which a

14

party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the orderly course of justice measured in

15

terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be

16

expected to result from a stay.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005)

17

(quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299

18

U.S. 248, 254, 57 S. Ct. 163, 81 L. Ed. 153 (1936))). As the moving party, Defendants bear the

19

burden to demonstrate that a stay is warranted. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706, 117 S. Ct.

20

1636, 137 L. Ed. 2d 945 (1997) (“The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its

21

need.”) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255).

22

III.

ANALYSIS

23

The Court finds that Defendants have not met their burden to demonstrate that a stay is

24

warranted. Defendants primary argument is that the Court should grant a stay until Plaintiffs’

25

criminal cases are resolved because the outcome could bar some of Plaintiffs’ claims. (ECF No.

26

14 at 4.) First, Defendants address collateral estoppel. (ECF No. 14 at 4–5.) “[Collateral

27

estoppel] means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid

28

final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future
2

1

lawsuit.” Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443 (1970). Here, there is no final judgment against

2

Plaintiffs. Therefore, collateral estoppel does not apply in the instant case. Second, Defendants

3

contend that under the Supreme Court’s holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994),

4

if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would imply invalidity of his conviction, the complaint must

5

be dismissed. (ECF No. 14 at 5.) However, Heck does not provide that “an action which would

6

impugn an anticipated future conviction cannot be brought until that conviction occurs and is set

7

aside.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 385, 127 S. Ct. 1091, 1093, 166 L. Ed. 2d 973 (2007). In

8

the instant case, Plaintiffs’ criminal cases are still pending, thus there is not a conviction that

9

would act as a bar. Moreover, as Plaintiffs have asserted, it is likely that the criminal case will be

10

concluded prior to the civil trial.1 As such, should Plaintiffs be convicted of an offense that

11

would preclude recovery on any of their civil claims, the Court will be able to address it prior to

12

the civil trial. Thus, the Court does not find that Heck warrants a stay at this time. Additionally,

13

the Court does not find that Defendants have met their burden of demonstrating that the factors

14

listed above weigh in favor of granting a stay.
Defendants do not identify any hardship or inequity in being required to move forward.

15
16

Instead, Defendants rest their assertions on their theory that Heck will require dismissal of

17

Plaintiffs’ claims for false arrest. (ECF No. 14 at 5–6.) However, only two of the seven Plaintiffs

18

have pending criminal trials, (ECF No. 17 at 7), and Plaintiffs’ false arrest claims only account

19

for a small portion of their claims. Furthermore, as previously stated, due to this Court’s heavy

20

criminal case load, it is likely that Plaintiffs’ criminal cases will have concluded prior to the

21

conclusion of the instant civil action.
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Ex Parte Application for Stay (ECF No. 14.)

22
23

is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED

24
25

Dated: March 18, 2016
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

26
27
1

28

The Yolo County District Attorney executed a criminal complaint against Plaintiffs Maria Vargas and Jorge
Vargas on June 15, 2015. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 57.)

3