| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion for stay
The case management conference is VACATED.
The court sets a status conference regarding the arbitration for January 22, 2027 in Department C28 at 9:00 a.m. Five days before the status conference the parties are ordered to submit a joint statement concerning the arbitration.
Defendant shall give notice of this ruling.
63. Catena v. Defendants Rose Wade-Northen and Patrick Northen’s motion Wade- for stay is DENIED. (See Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court Northern (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 886-889 (Avant) [factors]; People ex rel. Harris v. Rizzo (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 921, 952.) 2025- 01504829 Defendants fail to identify a single Penal Code section in their moving papers under which they may face potential criminal liability until their reply brief, where they identify Penal Code section 278.5 as the source of their potential exposure. Penal Code section 278.5 sets forth the crime of child custody deprivation. (See Pen. Code, § 278.5; see also People v. Jo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1152-1159 [elements].)
That said, defendants present no evidence that a criminal proceeding has been filed against defendants or that such a proceeding is forthcoming, likely, or even probable. (See Rodriguez Decl., in passim.) Indeed, there is no indication that a criminal investigation of defendants has taken place to date (see ibid.), despite the fact that plaintiff’s ex-wife allegedly abducted L.C. well over a year ago in January 2025, plaintiff reported the abduction to the Orange County District Attorney’s (DA) Child Abduction Unit in February 2025, and plaintiff has been working with law enforcement and other authorities to locate his daughter since January 2025 and continuously to this day. (See FAC ¶¶ 22-23, 26; Catena Decl. ¶¶ 6-8, 18, 23-24, Ex. I.)
At the same time, there is also no end in sight as to defendants’ claim of potential criminal exposure. L.C. is still very young (see Catena Decl. at Exs. A, U) and plaintiff’s ex- wife has continued to conceal and detain her with defendants’ alleged continued assistance for well over a year now, despite court orders requiring the ex-wife to return the child to plaintiff and the fact that plaintiff has had sole legal custody of L.C. since at least March 2025. (See id. ¶¶ 5, 18-25, Ex. A.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Further, the requested blanket stay would thwart plaintiff’s ability to use civil discovery directed at others to aide in his claims.
While it is true that defendants’ Fifth Amendment rights are theoretically implicated in this case, given the lack of any
evidence that the DA is even considering initiating an investigation against them, the lack of any certainty as to how long they may face theoretical criminal liability (potentially until L.C. reaches adulthood), plaintiff’s interest in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation, the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, the existence of other types of evidence that plaintiff may rely on to prove his claims, and the fact that defendants can still raise objections based on their Fifth Amendment rights to specific discovery requests as the case progresses—a blanket stay of the litigation or discovery is not warranted at this time.
And the court need not craft a narrower stay. The court can address any specific Fifth Amendment issues with appropriate orders if and when they arise (e.g., on a motion to compel/quash discovery, etc.) and can also revisit the issue in the event the circumstances change, such as evidence of a criminal investigation being initiated into defendants. (See Avant, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at pp. 886-889; People ex rel. Harris v. Rizzo, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 952.)
The case management conference is continued to October 5, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C28.
Defendants shall give notice of this ruling. 64.
65.