Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 20STCV25497, Date: 2024-06-20 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 20STCV25497    Hearing Date: June 20, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings

1. LASC No. 20STCV25497 (Lead Case)

On November 4, 2019, in LASC No. 20STCV25497 (the Lead Case), Conail Kwok—both as an individual and as the Successor in Interest of the Estate of Tat Kwok—filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) suing Defendants Ramon Healthcare Associates, Inc. (Mission Care Center; originally sued as Riverside Equities, LLC) and Does 1 through 25.

The FAC alleges claims of (1) Elder Abuse and Neglect pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code sections 15600, et seq., (2) Violation of Resident Rights pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 1430, subdivision (b), and (3) Wrongful Death.

The claims arise from allegations that Mission Care failed to provide adequate care for Tat Kwok and that Mission Care Center’s failure to prevent a wound from developing in Tat Kwok’s coccyx—the small triangular bone at the base of the spinal column—contributed to Tat Kwok’s injuries and subsequent death on April 28, 2019.

This action was assigned to Department 40 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse (the Court) for all purposes.

2. LASC No. 21STCV15837 (Brighton Case)

On November 3, 2023, Conail Kwok—both as an individual and as the Successor in Interest of the Estate of Tat Kwok—filed the operative FAC in LASC No. 21STCV15837, The Estate of Tat Kwok, et al. v. Brighton Convalescent, LLC (the Brighton Case), which sues Brighton Convalescent, LLC dba Brighton Care Center and Does 1 through 25 as Defendants and Ada Kwok and Melissa Kwok as Nominal Defendants.

The FAC alleges claims of (1) Elder Abuse and Neglect pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code sections 15600, et seq., (2) Violation of Resident Rights pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 1430, subdivision (b), and (3) Wrongful Death.

The claims arose from allegations that Brighton Care failed to provide adequate care for Tat Kwok and that Brighton Care Center’s failure to prevent a wound from developing in Tat Kwok’s coccyx contributed to Tat Kwok’s subsequent and later death on April 28, 2019.

This action was assigned to four other Departments in the Los Angeles Superior Court prior to being assigned to this Court for all purposes on May 28, 2024, through an order on a notice for related case.

B. Motion Before the Court

On April 26, 2024, in the Lead Case, Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate the Lead Case and the Brighton Case. The motion attaches a proof of service showing service of the motion on Mission Care Center’s counsel via electronic transmission. The motion was set for hearing on June 20, 2024.

On May 21, 2024, in the Brighton case, Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate the Lead Case and the Brighton Case. The points and authorities filed in relation to this motion are identical to those filed with the April 26th motion. The motion attached a proof of service showing service of the motion on Brighton Care Center’s counsel via electronic transmission. The motion was set for hearing on August 21, 2024.

On May 22, 2024, in relation to a different motion filed in the Lead Case, the Court advised Plaintiffs that in order to consolidate the two actions, they must be related.

That same day, Plaintiffs filed a notice of related case in the Lead Case.

On May 23, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a notice of related case in the Brighton Case.

On May 28, 2024, in the Lead Case and in the Brighton case, the Court issued an order relating the two actions, making the 20STCV25497 action the lead case, assigning both cases to this Court, and taking all hearings other than those in the Lead Case off calendar.

The record also fails to reflect an opposition by Mission Care Center or Brighton Care Center and a reply or notice of non-opposition by Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate, as filed in the Lead Case, is now before the Court.

II. Motion to Consolidate: GRANTED.

A. Legal Standard

When cases involving a common question of law or fact are pending in the same superior court, i.e., in the same county, the cases can be consolidated on a party’s motion or on the court’s own motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (a).

Cases can be consolidated for (1) all purposes (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp. (200) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147; see Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a)), (2) for trial (Stubblefield Constr. Co. v. City of San Bernardino (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 687, 701; see Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a)), or (3) for limited purposes, e.g., discovery or pretrial matters (see Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a); see, e.g., State v. Altus Fin., S.A. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1284, 1293 [cases consolidated for discovery and pretrial matters]; Austin B. v. Escondido Un. Sch. Dist. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 860, 870 [cases consolidated for discovery and trial]; Frieman v. San Rafael Rock Quarry, Inc. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 29, 33 [cases consolidated for discovery and pretrial determinations]).

To prevail on a motion to consolidate, a movant must establish that (1) the cases are pending before the same court, (2) the cases share a common question of law or fact, and (3) the benefits of consolidation outweigh the burdens. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)

B. Court’s Determination

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed motion.

The Lead Case and the Brighton Case were filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court and are related and pending before Department 40, meeting the first statutory requirement. (See also Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.3, subd. (g)(1) [“Cases may not be consolidated unless they are in the same department”].)

The cases also share common questions of law or fact. A comparison of the operative pleading in the Lead Case and Brighton Case shows that the pleadings are based on virtually identical factual and legal allegations despite being directed against different Defendants. (Compare FAC, Lead Case, ¶¶ 19-30 [common allegations], 31-59 [first cause of action], 60-65 [second cause of action], 66-71 [third cause of action], with FAC, Brighton Case, ¶¶ 21-32 [common allegations, virtually identical], 33-61 [first cause of action, virtually identical other than as to introduction headers in Lead Case pleading, omitted from Brighton Case pleading], 62-67 [second cause of action, virtually identical], 68-73 [third cause of action, virtually identical].) This similarity necessarily extends to identical liability for failure to provide adequate care for Tat Kwok and failure to prevent a wound from developing in Tat Kwok’s coccyx that contributed to Tat Kwok’s injuries and death on April 28, 2019. (Compare, e.g., FAC, Lead Case, ¶¶ 26-30 [coccyx], 37-48, 52-55, 56 [care], with FAC, Brighton Case, ¶¶ 28-32, 39-50, 54-57, 58 [virtually identical].) The second statutory requirement for relief is therefore met.

The last statutory requirement (balancing of benefits) is also met here through the benefits of:

(1)-(2) Saving time and money on Plaintiffs’ assertion of liability against distinct Defendants based on the same factual and legal grounds;

(3) Helping prevent inconsistent adjudications against Mission Care Center and Brighton Care Center as relates to liability arising from Tat Kwok’s injuries and death;

(4) Lessening the burden on judicial resources from having to rehear essentially the same case or from needing to make orders addressing inconsistences;

(5) Promoting the convenience of Plaintiff’s witnesses and attorneys, where Plaintiffs’ witnesses will be largely similar between the two actions as based on common factual allegations against both Defendants, and where Jorge Ledezma Flores, Esq. represents Plaintiffs in both actions;

(6) Encouraging settlement as between the parties in what would otherwise be separate two actions, where Plaintiffs asserts liability for the same factual and legal grounds against Mission Care Center and Brighton Care Center; and

(7) Avoiding the prejudice of inconsistent judgments against Mission Care Center and Brighton Care Center.

(See Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a) [setting forth these seven grounds for this element of consolidation].)

Having met all three statutory requirements, and given that it is unopposed, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.

III. Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate for All Purposes [Res ID # 9182] is GRANTED.