Lam v. City Of San Jose et al

Filing 18

ORDER STAYING CASE granting 11 . Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on May 9. 2014. (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

HUNG LAM,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.
CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al.,

14

Defendant.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:14-cv-00877-PSG
ORDER STAYING CASE
(Re: Docket No. 11)

“The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the

16
17

outcome of criminal” proceedings, 1 and the “decision whether to stay civil proceedings in the face

18

of a parallel criminal proceeding should be made ‘in light of the particular circumstances and

19

competing interests involved in the case.’” 2 The court must balance “the extent to which the

20

defendant’s fifth amendment rights” are implicated 3 by weighing “(1) the interest of the plaintiffs

21

in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential

22
23

prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may
1

24
25
26

Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 1989); see also
Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Dresser Indus., 628 F.2d 1368, 1374-75 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (“In
the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, simultaneous parallel civil
and criminal proceedings are unobjectionable under our jurisprudence. Nevertheless, a court may
decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings when the interests of justice seem to require such
action.” (internal quotations, citations and modifications omitted)).

27

2

Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 902.

28

3

Id.
1

Case No. 5:14-cv-00877-PSG
ORDER STAYING CASE