Judge Alison Mackenzie, Case Number: 23STCV03689, Date: 2024-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23STCV03689, Date: 2024-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03689 Hearing Date: January 29, 2024 Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate Cases for All Purposes.

The motion to consolidate is granted.

The Court consolidates for all purposes case number 23STCV03689 and case number 23STCV18882.

The lowest numbered case is deemed to be the lead case where all subsequent documents must be filed. CRC Rule 3.350(b)-(c); L.A.S.C.L.R. 3.3(g)(2).

Background

In this case, Plaintiff MARLON VALDEZ (“Plaintiff”) seeks damages against DOWNEYHOP INC. and JOSEPH KOUBA (“Defendants”) for alleged violations of California Labor Code sections regarding meal and rest breaks, and for alleged unfair competition in violation of Business And Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. In the related case 23STCV18882, Plaintiff filed a representative PAGA claim against Defendant for the same alleged Labor Code violations.

Plaintiff brings a motion to consolidate for all purposes case number 23STCV03689 and case number 23STCV18882. Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion.

Legal Standard

“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.” CCP §1048(a). The lowest numbered or first filed case is deemed to be the lead case where subsequent documents must be filed, unless otherwise ordered, and consolidation may be for all purposes including trial. CRC Rule 3.350(b)-(c); L.A.S.C.L.R. 3.3(g)(2). “The purpose of consolidation is merely to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions.” Wouldridge v. Burns (1968) 265 Cal. App. 2d 82, 86. An order determining whether to consolidate is discretionary. Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 976, 978.

Individual and PAGA claims typically have been filed as one complaint, indicating that consolidation for all purposes is appropriate. A few examples follow: “[W]here a plaintiff has filed a PAGA action comprised of individual and non-individual claims, an order compelling arbitration of individual claims does not strip the plaintiff of standing to litigate non-individual claims in court.” Adolph v. Uber Techs., Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5^th 1104, 1123. “Settlement of individual claims does not strip an aggrieved employee of standing, as the state’s authorized representative, to pursue PAGA remedies.” Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 80.

Analysis

As Plaintiff notes, both actions arise out of the same facts. And both actions are based on the same two violations of the California Labor Code against the same Defendant. The difference between the two cases is that Plaintiff seeks individual damages in 23STCV03689, whereas in case number 23STCV18882 Plaintiff brought a representative claim and seeks penalties under PAGA. The Court concludes that efficiency, economy and convenience would be served by consolidating the separate cases for all purposes. The motion therefore is granted.