Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 20STCV14617, Date: 2024-11-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV14617 Hearing Date: November 27, 2024 Dept: 55
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion
to Consolidate
Plaintiff's Motion
to Consolidate is denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Roderick Corprue filed this against the City of
Lawndale (“Lawndale”), Johnny Calderon, Kahono Oei, and doe Defendants 1 to 100
(collectively, “Defendants”), alleging employment discrimination.
On 6/23/22, the Court denied Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment, and granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary
adjudication with respect to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. After the
6/23/22 order, the remaining clams alleged violations of the FEHA
(discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to prevent, promptly
investigate and correct FEHA violations, failure to engage in the interactive
process, and failure to accommodate) based on disability for conduct that occurred
within one year of Plaintiff’s 3/20/20 DFEH Complaint. The Court specifically
granted summary adjudication against Plaintiff with respect to his claims for
violation of the FEHA based on race and age.
Plaintiff then sought leave to amend the pleading to add new
claims and legal theories that had arisen since he filed the case. In granting
Plaintiff’s motion to file a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), the Court noted
in its order on 8/1/23 that Plaintiff could reallege summarily adjudicated
claims to avoid waivers on appeal, but that issues summarily adjudicated could
not be relitigated merely because such allegations were contained in the
amended pleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s prior FEHA claims based on race and
age remained dismissed because the Court had previously summary adjudicated
those claims along with other claims for violation of the CFRA, violation of
Labor Code Section 1102.5, and defamation.
Plaintiff again sought leave to amend the complaint by adding
that Plaintiff had been formally terminated and to re-allege racial
discrimination. On 9/23/24, the Court denied the motion as untimely and
prejudicial.
On 9/30/2024, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendants,
case no. 24STCV25195.
On 10/11/2024, the Court found the two cases were related
within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).
Plaintiff filed a motion for consolidation. Defendant
opposes.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of (1) the Right to
Sue dated October 11, 2022; (2) the Right to Sue dated August 7, 2024; the
Complaint filed on September 30, 2024, Case No. 24STCV25195, Roderick
Corprue v. City of Lawndale; (4) and the Notice of Related Case filed in
the Related Case, Case No. 24STCV25195, Roderick Corprue v. City of Lawndale is
granted.
PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
1-4. Overruled
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a)
provides, “When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending
before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the
matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated, and
it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid
unnecessary costs or delay.” The purpose of consolidation is to avoid
unnecessary costs or delay, avoid duplication of procedure, particularly in the
proof of issues common to both actions, and avoid inconsistent results by
hearing and deciding common issues together. Estate of Baker (1982)
131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485.) In deciding whether to grant a motion to consolidate,
the court should weigh whether the common issues predominate over the
individual issues and whether any risks of jury confusion or prejudice to the
parties outweighs the reduction in time and expense that would result from
consolidation. Todd-Stenberg v. Shield (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976,
978. The granting or denial of the motion to consolidate rests in the
sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed except upon a
clear showing of abuse of discretion. See Fellner v. Steinbaum
(1955) 132 Cal. App.2d 509, 511.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks consolidation of two cases currently pending
in the Los Angeles Superior Court, the instant action, case number 20STCV14617
(the lead case) and case number 24STCV25195 (the related case), both of which
are pending before Judge Mackenzie in Department 55 of the Stanley Mosk
Courthouse.
I. Motion for Reconsideration
Defendants argue that in filing the instant motion,
Plaintiff effectively seeks an untimely motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s September 23, 2024 ruling denying leave to file a fourth amended
complaint. Opposition at p. 6: 19-22. The Court agrees.
The Court finds that the instant motion for consolidation
amounts to an untimely motion for reconsideration. While formally an attempt to
consolidate two separate cases, the related case was filed only after the Court
denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. The
Complaint in the related case contains substantially the same allegations that
Plaintiff desired to add in his proposed fourth amended complaint to the senior
case. Therefore, in substance, if not form, the instant motion is an untimely
motion for reconsideration. As this Court has repeatedly held, the causes of
action for race and age-based FEHA violations were summarily adjudicated in
Defendants’ favor. Plaintiff’s continued attempts to plead around this decision
are unavailing.
II. Prejudice
Additionally, Defendants argue that consolidating the two
cases will prejudice them.
In ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a fourth
amended complaint, the Court found that granting the motion would prejudice Defendants
by requiring them to conduct additional discovery and possibly file additional
motions contesting the merits of the new claims, necessitating a continuance of
the trial date and additional pre-trial litigation. Likewise, the Court
concludes that granting Plaintiff’s motion for consolidation would similarly prejudice
Defendants.
Plaintiff contends that any potential delay is outweighed by
the benefits of avoiding duplicative discovery, recalling witnesses,
overlapping work history and details, and inconsistent verdicts. Reply at p. 4:
14-17. However, considering that Plaintiff’s race and age discrimination claims
were previously summarily adjudicated on almost identical facts, the Court is
skeptical that the claims raised in the related case will make it to trial.
The central new fact that Plaintiff argues distinguishes the
claims in the related case from the summarily adjudicated causes of action is
Lawndale’s formal termination of Plaintiff in May 2024. Related case Complaint
¶ 25. However, like the Third Amended Complaint in the lead case, the Complaint
in the related case alleges that Plaintiff was constructively terminated in
2022. It states, “[t]he City’s refusal to accommodate [Plaintiff’s 15-pound
lifting limit] constituted a constructive termination, as Plaintiff was
effectively forced out of his job due to the City’s refusal to comply with his medical
needs. The financial hardship resulting from the refusal was severe. Plaintiff
was cut off from his income, forcing him to deplete his retirement savings and
eventually lose his home in Los Angeles compelling him to move back with his
parents in Louisiana.” Id. ¶ 20.
The distinction between a constructive termination, which
effectively forced Plaintiff out of his job, cut him off from his income, and
forced him to leave the state, and formal termination is narrow. The Court
finds it unlikely that such a distinction is sufficient to result in a
different outcome for the race and age discrimination claims. Therefore, the
Court concludes that Plaintiff’s arguments for consolidation based on judicial economy
do not outweigh the prejudice to Defendants.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate is denied.