Goines v. Lee Memorial Health System et al

Filing 211

OPINION AND ORDER lifting stay. A Final Pretrial Conference and trial for April 6, 2020, before the undersigned will be set by separate notice. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 2/27/2020. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DONIA GOINES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No:

2:17-cv-656-FtM-29NPM

LEE MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM
and JEOVANNI HECHAVARRIA,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
On October 2, 2019, on the eve of trial, defendant Jeovanni
Hechavarria (defendant or Hechavarria) filed a Motion to Stay (Doc.
#203) these federal civil proceedings pending resolution of the
state criminal case against him.

Defendant asserted that a brief

stay was necessary in order for the state criminal prosecution to
proceed first, otherwise he would be forced to exercise his Fifth
Amendment privilege in the civil trial.
and was granted by the Court.

The motion was unopposed,

(Doc. #204.)

The state court trial

is complete, defendant was convicted of the criminal offense, and
he is currently scheduled for sentencing in March 2020.
On January 29, 2020, the Court directed the parties to advise
whether the stay should remain in place or be lifted in light of
the guilty verdict.

On January 31, 2020, plaintiff filed a

Response (Doc. #208) indicating that the stay should be lifted.

On February 5, 2020, defendant Lee Memorial Health System filed a
Notification (Doc. #209) deferring to the co-defendant.

On the

same day, defendant Hechavarria filed a Response (Doc. #210) asking
that the stay be maintained.

Hechavarria asserts that a stay is

necessary because post-trial motions remain pending, sentencing is
scheduled for March 2020, and he still faces prosecution based on
the alleged assaults of Brianna Hammer and J.L.

Thus, Hechavarria

asserts, without a stay he would still be forced to choose between
exercising his Fifth Amendment privilege and mounting a defense in
the civil case.

Defendant further asserts that the only prejudice

to plaintiff “is a brief delay in litigation.”

(Doc. #210, p. 3.)

It is clear that “the power to stay proceedings is incidental
to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of
the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for
itself, for counsel, and for litigants.

How this can best be done

calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing
interests and maintain an even balance.”

Landis v. N. Am. Co.,

299

omitted).

U.S.

248,

254–55

(1936)

(citations

The

party

requesting a stay “must make out a clear case of hardship or
inequity in being required to go forward, if there is even a fair
possibility that the stay for which he prays will work damage to
some one else. Only in rare circumstances will a litigant in one
cause be compelled to stand aside while a litigant in another

- 2 -

settles the rule of law that will define the rights of both.”
Landis,

299

U.S.

at

255.

Thus,

“especially

in

cases

of

extraordinary public moment, a plaintiff may be required to submit
to delay not immoderate in extent and not oppressive in its
consequences if the public welfare or convenience will thereby be
promoted.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706–07 (1997) (quoting
Landis, 299 U.S. at 256).
Where the basis for a stay is the potential exercise of the
privilege against self-incrimination, the Eleventh Circuit has
stated:
Similarly,
a
blanket
assertion
of
the
privilege is an inadequate basis for the
issuance of a stay. [ ] Rather, a court must
stay a civil proceeding pending resolution of
a related criminal prosecution only when
“special circumstances” so require in the
“interests of justice.” [ ] The court may deny
a stay so long as the privilege's invocation
does not compel an adverse judgment against
the claimant. United States v. Premises
Located at Route 13, 946 F.2d 749, 756 (11th
Cir. 1991). See [United States v.] Little Al,
712 F.2d [133,] 136 [(5th Cir. 1983)] (“The
very fact of a parallel criminal proceeding,
however,
d[oes]
not
alone
undercut
[a
claimant's]
privilege
against
selfincrimination, even though the pendency of the
criminal action forced [her] to choose between
preserving [her] privilege against selfincrimination and losing the civil suit.”).
United States v. Lot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua County, Fla., 23 F.3d
359, 364 (11th Cir. 1994)(internal citations omitted).

If a stay

is granted, the district court must limit the scope of the stay so

- 3 -

that

it

Uiterwyk

is

not

Corp.,

“immoderate.”
685

F.2d

CTI–Container

1284,

1288

(11th

Leasing
Cir.

Corp.

1982).

v.
“In

considering whether a stay is ‘immoderate,’ we examine both the
scope of the stay (including its potential duration) and the
reasons cited by the district court for the stay.

As the Supreme

Court has explained, ‘a stay is immoderate and hence unlawful
unless so framed in its inception that its force will be spent
within reasonable limits, so far at least as they are susceptible
of prevision and description.’”

Ortega Trujillo v. Conover & Co.

Communications, Inc., 221 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting
Landis, 299 U.S. at 257).
Hechavarria’s assertion that there will only be a “brief delay
in

litigation”

privilege

is

against

overly

optimistic.

self-incrimination

While

applies

in

Hechavarria’s
a

sentencing

hearing, United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178, 1196 (11th
Cir. 2011), it also applies until the conviction becomes final.
“We conclude that principle applies to cases in which the sentence
has been fixed and the judgment of conviction has become final.”
Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 326 (1999).
at least through the completion of an appeal.

This includes

Landenberger v.

State, 519 So. 2d 712, 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988))(“In the absence of
a promise of immunity, a convicted felon with an appeal pending
has a Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify, and this privilege

- 4 -

continues throughout the pendency of the appeal.”); United States
v. Kennedy, 372 F.3d 686, 691–92 (4th Cir. 2004)(“Because any postconviction evidence could be used against a defendant if his
conviction

were

to

be

overturned,

the

risk

of

coerced

self-

incrimination remains until the conviction has been affirmed on
appeal.”)
The Court finds that there are no special circumstances which
require a stay of the civil trial in the interests of justice.
The

stay

requested

by

defendant

is

immoderate

because

it

effectively will last for an indeterminate number of years as the
state case(s) work there way through the state trial and appellate
systems.

“Th[is] rule allowing invocation of the privilege [by

civil litigants], though at the risk of suffering an adverse
inference or even a default, accommodates the right not to be a
witness against oneself while still permitting civil litigation to
proceed.” Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314, 328 (1999).

In

balancing the interests of the parties, the Court finds no reason
to

stay

this

civil

trial

beyond

the

defendant’s current conviction.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. The stay in the case is lifted.

- 5 -

date

of

sentencing

on

2. Another Final Pretrial Conference will be scheduled in
March.

Trial is set for April 6, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. before

the undersigned.

A separate notice shall issue.

DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of February, 2020.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

- 6 -

27th

day