Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 23STCV25482, Date: 2024-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV25482    Hearing Date: August 28, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

Background

Third party Francesca Webb p/k/a Francesca Farago (Farago), who is the plaintiff in Farago v. Bounty LA, Case No. 24STCV06590 (the Second Action) moves for an order that the instant action, Bounty LA v. We Are Verified, Case No. 23STCV25482, be related to the Second Action pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.300.

Moving party Farago states the two cases arise from the same or substantially identical transactions and are likely to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.

Plaintiff Bounty LA, LLC (Bounty LA) is a talent agency that represented Farago between January 2021 and February 2023. (Mot. to Relate, p. 2.) After Farago terminated her agreement with Bounty LA she hired Defendant We Are Verified as her representative. (Mot. to Relate, p. 2.) On October 18, 2023, Bounty LA filed the instant action against We Are Verified for interference with its contractual relationship with Farago. (Mot. to Relate, p. 2.) On October 24, 2023, Bounty LA filed a petition against Farago with the Labor Commissioner, alleging breaches of their purported agreement. (Mot. to Relate, p. 2.) On March 15, 2024, Farago filed the Second Action against Bounty LA, alleging claims for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and other causes of action related to her agreement with Bounty LA. (Mot. to Relate, p. 2.)

On March 18, 2024, Farago filed a Notice of Related Case in the instant action. Due to a clerical error, the Notice of Related Case was not filed in the Second Action until July 24, 2024.

On May 31, 2024, at Bounty LA’s request, the Court in the Second Action stayed the action, pending resolution of the Labor Commissioner proceedings. (Mot to Relate, Exs. 5, 6.)

On June 3, 2024, Bounty LA served 26 Requests for Production and 11 Special Interrogatories upon We Are Verified, seeking information regarding its relations with Farago. (Mot. to Relate, Ex. 7.) The same day, Bounty LA served a Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents upon Farago. (Mot. to Relate, Ex. 8.)

On July 26, 2024, We are Verified filed a Joinder to this Motion to Relate Cases.  

On August 15, 2024, Bounty LA filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to this Motion to Relate Cases.

Motion to Relate Cases

            Legal Standard

California Rule of Court 3.300 provides in relevant part: “A pending civil case is related to another pending civil case […] if the cases: (1) Involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims; (2) Arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact; (3) [omitted] or (4) Are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.”

Where the two matters are both unlimited civil cases, the judge who has the earliest filed case must determine whether the cases should be related. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300, subd. (h)(1).) Here, this Court (Department 40) has the first filed case and is the appropriate party to make that ruling.

Analysis

Here, the two cases involve the same parties and are based on similar claims. In the present action, Bounty LA is suing We Are Verified for interfering with its contract with Farago and in the Second Action, Farago is suing Bounty LA for breaching the same contract. (Mot. to Relate, p.3.) The issues of whether Bounty LA’s contract with Farago is valid, and whether Farago was justified in terminating the agreement and then working with We Are Verified, and whether We Are Verified is liable for interfering with contractual relations are based on the same claims and arise from the same transaction. Because the legal and factual issues in both actions are substantially the same, it would be duplicative for different judges to hear the actions. No Opposition has been filed.

Thus, the cases are related within the meaning of California Rule of Court 3.300.          

Conclusion

Third Party Francesca Webb’s, p/k/a Francesa Farago, Motion to Relate Cases is GRANTED. 23STCV25482 will be the lead action. The Second Action will be transferred to this Court and all pending matters in Department 55 are vacated.