Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Proceedings Properly Stayed Until Defendant In Civil Case Sentenced on Criminal Charge
But Now That Sentencing Has Taken Place, Martinez Says, There’s No Continuing Justification for Delay
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district issued an opinion yesterday in which it declared, in dictum, that a judge did not abuse her discretion in staying proceedings in a wrongful death case until the defendant, whose deposition was sought, had been sentenced on a vehicular manslaughter charge but held, in issuing a writ of mandate, that the judge lacked any reason for keeping the stay in place now that sentence has been imposed.
Presiding Justice Gonzalo Martinez of Div. Seven authored the unpublished opinion. It disapproves of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lynne M. Hobbs’s insistence in keeping proceedings in the civil case on hold even after the sentencing of Austin Nok Lum Wong.
The case arises from the death in November 2021 of Yangyang Liu who was struck while in a crosswalk in Pasadena by a car driven by Wong. Her husband, Joseph Wirija, and her parents, Ansheng Liu and Lele Chen, on Aug. 30, 2022, sued Wong and the City of Pasadena.
On June 22, 2023, Wong pled no contest to vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence. It was stipulated that after serving Lela 364 days in, he would be sentenced on July 12, 2024 to “2 years felony formal probation, execution of sentence suspended for the mid-term of 04 years.”
Waiver of Self-Incrimination
At the time of his plea, Wong waived his right against self-incrimination. Nonetheless, he sought to invoke that right in opposing a deposition until after the formal sentencing.
A stay was granted, to expire July 15, 2024. The plaintiffs on Oct. 19, 2023, filed in the Court of Appeal a petition for a writ of mandate to compel a lifting of the stay.
Oral argument was waived and the case was taken under submission on July 2.
On July 12, Wong was sentenced, in accordance with the agreement. Three days later, the plaintiffs asked that the stay be lifted.
Won’s lawyer suggested that the stay could not be lifted because the Court of Appeal now had jurisdiction. Hobbs declined to oblige the plaintiffs’ request and continued the matter to Oct. 8.
Martinez’s Opinion
Martinez said in yesterday’s opinion:
“The superior court’s justification for the stay of proceedings dissipated after Wong was sentenced on July 12, 2024. Wong is no longer entitled to a stay of proceedings based on his right against self-incrimination in light of his sentencing….Accordingly, there is also no reason justifying a stay of proceedings as to the City.”
However, he said that “[a]lthough an 11-month stay is a significant pause in proceedings,” it is justified to protect constitutional rights “despite potential ‘inconvenience and delay’ to opposing parties.”
Stay Initially Justified
The presiding justice wrote:
“The superior court did not abuse its discretion by staying discovery against Wong. First, although Wong had pleaded no contest to the criminal charge when the court imposed the stay of discovery, the Petitioners have not demonstrated the superior court abused its discretion by implicitly finding that the civil proceeding implicated Wong’s Fifth Amendment rights. Even after entering his plea, under clearly established law, Wong retained his Fifth Amendment privilege with respect to his forthcoming sentencing….
“As Wong contends, the criminal court or the prosecution could potentially withdraw the plea agreement on the basis of any of Wong’s discovery responses in the civil case, and they could also use such responses against him at his forthcoming sentencing….
“That Wong waived his right against self-incrimination at his plea hearing does not change our analysis.”
There was no waiver outside of the criminal proceedings, he said.
Argument Is Speculative
Martinez added:
“Petitioners’ assertions regarding the ‘potential disappearance of key witnesses and evidence’ are speculative and unsupported by the record before us. Petitioners did not identify any specific evidentiary prejudice they suffered as a result of the stay. And even if judicial economy and the convenience of the court weighed against a stay, we cannot say the court’s order granting a stay of discovery against Wong before he was sentenced was an abuse of discretion.”
The case is Wirija v. Superior Court, B332647.
Attorneys on appeal were Jody Steinberg, Nicholas S. Walls, and Roxanne F. Swedelson of the Woodland Hills firm of Hanger, Steinberg, Shapiro & Ash, for the plaintiffs/petitioners, Deputy Pasadena City Attorneys Danielle St. Claire and Sophia M. Retchless for the city, and William O. Woodland and Mark P. LaScola of the Long Beach firm of Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar for Wong.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company