(3) the convenience to the court in managing its docket and efficiently using judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons who are not parties to the civil proceeding; and (5) the interests of the public in the pending civil and criminal actions. [Citations.]" Pasamba, 2014 IL App (1st) 133551, ¶ 52 (citing Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovack, 326 Ill. App. 3d 1131, 1136 (2002)). Courts also consider the posture of the criminal proceeding and whether both actions were brought by the government.
As a general rule, the fact that a party involved in a civil proceeding invokes his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination "does not *** mandate a stay of [the] civil proceeding pending the outcome of similar or parallel criminal proceedings." JacksonvilleSavings Bank v. Kovack, 326 Ill. App. 3d 1131, 1135 (2002); see also People ex rel. Hartigan v. Kafka Sons Building Supply Co., 252 Ill. App. 3d 115, 119 (1993). The party seeking to stay the civil proceeding in which the fifth amendment has been invoked bears the burden of proving that a stay is appropriate.
Instead, when evaluating whether to stay a civil suit to prevent compulsory self-incrimination, this court applies the abuse of discretion standard of review. Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovack, 326 Ill.App.3d 1131, 1137 (2002). An abuse of discretion occurs when "the ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, or when no reasonable person would take the same view."
However, "the fact that a party involved in a civil proceeding invokes his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination 'does not *** mandate a stay of [the] civil proceeding[ ] pending the outcome of similar or parallel criminal proceedings.' " Cordeck Sales, Inc. v. Construction Systems, Inc., 382 Ill. App. 3d 334, 348-49 (2008) (quoting Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovack, 326 Ill. App. 3d 1131, 1135 (2002)). The party seeking the stay must justify it by clear and convincing circumstances outweighing potential harm to the party against whom the stay is operative.
¶ 35 I. Standard of Review ¶ 36 The entry of a stay maintains the case in its existing state without ruling on the dispute between the parties (Kaden v. Pucinski, 263 Ill.App.3d 611, 615, 200 Ill.Dec. 129, 635 N.E.2d 468 (1994) ), and it is within the probate court's discretion (Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovack, 326 Ill.App.3d 1131, 1136, 261 Ill.Dec. 211, 762 N.E.2d 1138 (2002) ). When a criminal action is pending during the course of a civil action, a court can stay the civil action to protect a party's right against self-incrimination.
¶ 35 I. Standard of Review ¶ 36 The entry of a stay maintains the case in its existing state without ruling on the dispute between the parties (Kaden v. Pucinski, 263 Ill. App. 3d 611, 615 (1994)), and it is within the probate court's discretion (Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovack, 326 Ill. App. 3d 1131, 1136 (2002)). When a criminal action is pending during the course of a civil action, a court can stay the civil action to protect a party's right against self-incrimination.
In determining the propriety of a stay, the court may consider factors including but not limited to the following: (1) the posture of the criminal proceeding; (2) the interests of and burdens on defendant, including the extent to which defendant's fifth amendment rights are implicated if a stay is denied; (3) the effect on the public interests at stake if a stay were issued; (4) the plaintiff's interest in expeditious resolution of the civil case and any prejudice to plaintiff in not proceeding; (5) whether the criminal and civil actions involve the same subject matter; and (6) whether both actions were brought by the government. See Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovak, 326 Ill. App. 3d 1131, 1136 (2002). A court may also take into consideration the need to manage its docket and the efficient use of its judicial resources.
" Giampa, 89 Ill. App. 3d at 613. In Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovack, 326 Ill. App. 3d 1131 (2002), the defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to stay civil proceedings in light of a pending criminal investigation. The defendant was accused of illegally receiving funds belonging to the bank while he was employed there.
But "the fact that a party involved in a civil proceeding invokes his [or her] fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination 'does not *** mandate a stay of [the] civil proceeding[ ] pending the outcome of similar or parallel criminal proceedings.'" Cordeck Sales, Inc. v. Construction Systems, Inc., 382 Ill.App.3d 334, 348-49 (2008) (quoting Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovack, 326 Ill.App.3d 1131, 1135 (2002)). The party seeking the stay must justify it by clear and convincing circumstances, outweighing potential harm to the party against whom the stay operates.
Plaintiff Barnhart argues, in opposition, that the United States Constitution does not "require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of civil proceedings." In support of her contention that McKinney is not entitled to a stay of the civil proceedings, Barnhart relies on Jacksonville Savings Bank v. Kovack, 326 Ill. App. 3d 1131 (2002). However, the holding in Jacksonville is inapposite.