Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 20STCV38925, Date: 2022-12-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV38925    Hearing Date: December 22, 2022    Dept: 30

Jane B.C. Doe, et. al. vs. Rowland Unified School District, et. al., Case No. 20STCV38925

Tentative Ruling re:  Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate

Plaintiffs Jane B.C. Doe and Jane S.G. Doe (collectively, Plaintiffs) move for an order consolidating this action with Jane RPV Doe v. Rowland Unified School District, et al. (20STCV40649) (Jane RPV Doe). The motion is granted.

            Code of Civil Procedure § 1048, subd. (a) provides, “[w]hen 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.” Additionally, “[t]he court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action . . . or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (b).)

The motion is made on the basis that the actions involve substantially the same facts and evidence and arise out of the same transactions or occurrences. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1048; Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.350.) The Court agrees.

In both cases, the minor plaintiffs allege that they were sexually harassed, abused, and molested on multiple occasions by Defendant Carlos Mungia (Mungia) while on campus at Hurley Elementary School. Both cases also involve claims for Negligence, Negligent Supervision, and Negligent Hiring and Retention based on the alleged failures of Defendant Rowland Unified School District (RUSD) and its employees in connection with Mungia’s abuse, including the failure to prevent, failure to supervise, failure to investigate, and the concealment of facts regarding Mungia’s abuse. (Comp. ¶¶ 24-27 ; Boubian Decl ¶ 6., Ex. C [103].)

            The alleged period of abuse in Jane RPV Doe also overlaps in time with the alleged abuse of Plaintiffs in this action. Mungia’s abuse of Jane Doe RPV is alleged to have taken place from September 2015 to February 2018. (Boubian, Ex. C.) In this case, Mungia’s alleged abuse of  Jane Doe B.C. took place from 2014 and 2015, and of Jane Doe S.G., from August 2016 to January 2017. (Comp. ¶¶ 22-23.)

            Mungia argues that he will face substantial prejudice if the cases are consolidated, given the possibility that the jury will confuse and conflate the testimony of the three Plaintiffs regarding their abuse by Mungia.

            In Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s order to consolidate three cases each alleging injuries from the use of an intrauterine device (IUD). The court “agree[d] with the trial court's reasoning that consolidation of the cases would not unduly confuse the jury or prejudice” the defendant, noting that “[t]here were only three plaintiffs.” (Id. at 980) The court distinguished cases finding prejudice which “involved a substantially greater number of plaintiffs than the three, or even the original six, plaintiffs in the present case,” in which “there is a far more significant possibility of confusing the jury than existed here.” (Id. at 980.)

            Here, similarly, there would only be three plaintiffs following consolidation. Though the incidents of each Plaintiff’s abuse by Mungia are separate, the fact of multiple plaintiffs does not in itself support the risk of prejudice or confusion, and any risk may also be mitigated by “carefully present[ing]” evidence. (Todd-Stenberg, 48 Cal.App.4th at 981.)