Award Recipient
Top 100 Trial Attorneys in the United States
Contact Us for a Free Consultation
Parallel Criminal & Civil Cases: Is a Stay Mandatory?
In many criminal cases alleging domestic violence, stalking, vandalism, trespassing, or criminal threats, there is a parallel civil restraining order brought by the victim against the defendant. Our office is often asked what one should do in response to this situation and we usually answer that one should ask the judge handling the civil restraining order to stay such a hearing pending resolution of the criminal cases. The case on point for this is Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal. App.3d 686.
The following summary, however, presents a “twist” on the above scenario. In People v. Nancy Wood, a civil case, the City of Fountain Valley sought to prohibit Nancy Wood, an indigent homeless woman, from residing in the City’s Mile Square Park after park hours, and sought a finding that she was a nuisance for doing so. The park is near the hospital where Ms. Wood received treatment for cancer and heart disease. At the time, the City of Fountain Valley had no homeless shelter. Ms. Wood had lived in the park for several years.
However, The City of Fountain Valley first filed a criminal complaint for trespassing against Ms. Wood, which entitled her to representation by appointed counsel. In that case, she conceded that she was residing in the park in violation of a city ordinance, but argued a necessity defense since it was near the hospital and the Fountain Valley had no homeless shelter in the city.
Ms. Wood, acting in pro per, then asked the judge in her civil case, Derek W. Hunt, to stay that case pending resolution of her criminal case. Judge Hunt denied the request and set the case for trial, ultimately granting judgment in favor of Fountain Valley (it merits mention that this case proceeded as a bench trial and Ms. Wood tried to appear remotely by using an Internet connection from a Starbucks, but the connection was spotty).
In denying her request for a stay, Judge Hunt stated on the record that he had “a thousand cases on my inventory. So I don’t have time to go looking up everybody else’s defense. That’s why I count on lawyers to do it for me.” He continued, “That’s why I’ve told you in the past, you really need a lawyer to orient me on where I should look to see whether or not you have a good defense here.” In other words, it seems, the judge was frustrated at Ms. Wood and was too busy to perform the legal analysis needed.
Ms. Woods then obtained counsel (the Elder Law and Disability Rights Center in Santa Ana as well as UCI Law School’s Civil Rights Litigation Clinic, using law students) and that counsel filed an appeal of Judge Hunt’s order denying her stay. The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District in Santa Ana granted her appeal and reverse the civil judgment (meanwhile Ms. Wood was acquitted in her criminal case).
The Fourth District agreed that Judge Hunt abused his discretion in failing to stay the civil case pending the outcome of the criminal case. The Fourth District then reversed the civil judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The appellate court was careful to explain, “[w]hether or not the Eighth Amendment defense of necessity applies in this civil case – an issue we do not reach – the decision to issue an injunction in a civil case involves an exercise of the court’s equitable jurisdiction: the court is therefore obligated to consider all relevant evidence in determining whether, and to what extent, an injunction is the appropriate remedy for the wrong established.”
The Fourth District explained that it is inherently unfair to require a party to simultaneously defend civil and criminal cases arising from the same conduct. When deciding whether to issue a stay in civil proceedings due to a parallel criminal proceeding, the trial court should consider, among other things, the extent to which the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights are implicated; the interest of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously, the burden any particular aspect of the proceedings may place on the defendant; the interest of persons not parties to the litigation; and the interest of the public in the pending criminal and civil litigation.
Here, Ms. Wood was represented by counsel in the criminal proceedings, but not in the civil proceedings, so she had to deal directly with Fountain Valley’s attorneys, the same ones who were prosecuting the criminal case. Those same lawyers were ethically barred from communicating directly with Ms. Wood, a represented criminal defendant, so Ms. Wood’s Fifth Amendment rights were in peril.
Moreover, there was no evidence the city needed to proceed expeditiously on the civil case or that the public had any similar interest, so the failure to stay the civil proceeding was error.
The following summary, however, presents a “twist” on the above scenario. In People v. Nancy Wood, a civil case, the City of Fountain Valley sought to prohibit Nancy Wood, an indigent homeless woman, from residing in the City’s Mile Square Park after park hours, and sought a finding that she was a nuisance for doing so. The park is near the hospital where Ms. Wood received treatment for cancer and heart disease. At the time, the City of Fountain Valley had no homeless shelter. Ms. Wood had lived in the park for several years.
However, The City of Fountain Valley first filed a criminal complaint for trespassing against Ms. Wood, which entitled her to representation by appointed counsel. In that case, she conceded that she was residing in the park in violation of a city ordinance, but argued a necessity defense since it was near the hospital and the Fountain Valley had no homeless shelter in the city.
Ms. Wood, acting in pro per, then asked the judge in her civil case, Derek W. Hunt, to stay that case pending resolution of her criminal case. Judge Hunt denied the request and set the case for trial, ultimately granting judgment in favor of Fountain Valley (it merits mention that this case proceeded as a bench trial and Ms. Wood tried to appear remotely by using an Internet connection from a Starbucks, but the connection was spotty).
In denying her request for a stay, Judge Hunt stated on the record that he had “a thousand cases on my inventory. So I don’t have time to go looking up everybody else’s defense. That’s why I count on lawyers to do it for me.” He continued, “That’s why I’ve told you in the past, you really need a lawyer to orient me on where I should look to see whether or not you have a good defense here.” In other words, it seems, the judge was frustrated at Ms. Wood and was too busy to perform the legal analysis needed.
Ms. Woods then obtained counsel (the Elder Law and Disability Rights Center in Santa Ana as well as UCI Law School’s Civil Rights Litigation Clinic, using law students) and that counsel filed an appeal of Judge Hunt’s order denying her stay. The California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District in Santa Ana granted her appeal and reverse the civil judgment (meanwhile Ms. Wood was acquitted in her criminal case).
The Fourth District agreed that Judge Hunt abused his discretion in failing to stay the civil case pending the outcome of the criminal case. The Fourth District then reversed the civil judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The appellate court was careful to explain, “[w]hether or not the Eighth Amendment defense of necessity applies in this civil case – an issue we do not reach – the decision to issue an injunction in a civil case involves an exercise of the court’s equitable jurisdiction: the court is therefore obligated to consider all relevant evidence in determining whether, and to what extent, an injunction is the appropriate remedy for the wrong established.”
The Fourth District explained that it is inherently unfair to require a party to simultaneously defend civil and criminal cases arising from the same conduct. When deciding whether to issue a stay in civil proceedings due to a parallel criminal proceeding, the trial court should consider, among other things, the extent to which the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights are implicated; the interest of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously, the burden any particular aspect of the proceedings may place on the defendant; the interest of persons not parties to the litigation; and the interest of the public in the pending criminal and civil litigation.
Here, Ms. Wood was represented by counsel in the criminal proceedings, but not in the civil proceedings, so she had to deal directly with Fountain Valley’s attorneys, the same ones who were prosecuting the criminal case. Those same lawyers were ethically barred from communicating directly with Ms. Wood, a represented criminal defendant, so Ms. Wood’s Fifth Amendment rights were in peril.
Moreover, there was no evidence the city needed to proceed expeditiously on the civil case or that the public had any similar interest, so the failure to stay the civil proceeding was error.
We believe this ruling is important authority on the common issue outlined at the outset of this article, but also, separately, in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, et al., which found that the imposition of criminal penalties for camping in public places did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment of homeless people. In this Orange County criminal case, apparently necessity was a defense leading to acquittal.
Your Privacy Choices