Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 20STCV07214, Date: 2023-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV07214    Hearing Date: March 13, 2023    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date:             March 13, 2023

Case Name:                 Aubrey Pittman v. MV Transportation, Inc.

Case No.:                    20STCV07214 (Department 58)

                                    22STCV38830 (Department 26)

Matter:                        Notice of Related Case

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Aubrey Pittman

Responding Party:      N/A

            These are two employment cases with the same parties.  Aubrey Pittman (Plaintiff) filed a notice of related cases in 20STCV07214 in Department 58, and 22STCV38830 in Department 26.  The Court finds that the two cases are related.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a).)   

DISCUSSION

Cases at Issue:

Procedural Requirements

            If all the related cases have been filed in one superior court, as it is here, “[w]here the cases listed in the notice are unlimited civil cases, the judge who has the earliest filed case must determine whether the cases should be ordered related and assigned to his or her department.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(h)(1)(A).)

            The notice of related case must be filed in all pending cases listed in the notice and must be served on all parties in those cases.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(d).)  Plaintiff filed a notice of related case in both cases.  20STCV07214 is the earlier case and so Department 58 shall determine whether the cases are related.

            A party may respond to a notice of related cases within five days of service on the party.  (Cal. Rule of Court 3.300(g).)  No party responded to the notice of related case.  In fact, both parties filed a joint stipulation in 20STCV07214 to consolidate the two matters.

Substantive Requirements

            The inquiry on a notice of related cases is whether the cases at issue (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) involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property; or (4) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a)(1)-(4).)

            20STCV07214 – Aubrey Pittman v. MV Transportation, Inc. (First Lawsuit)

            In this case, Plaintiff sued MV Transportation, Inc. (Defendant) for three violations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): (1) failure to accommodate disability, (2) failure to engage in an interactive process, and (3) disability discrimination.  

            The events at issue in this case spanned between September 10, 2018 and December 30, 2019.  Plaintiff was a bus driver and after injuring his knee, was placed on light duty.  In March 2019, he was placed on workers compensation leave due to knee surgery.  In July 2019, Plaintiff was released to work in a sedentary position, but Defendant reportedly refused to accommodate him.  In December 2019, Plaintiff was cleared to resume driving, but Defendant allegedly refused to allow him to return to work, claiming that he was a liability.

            The most recent substantive event in this case was on June 16, 2021, for a hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which was granted only on the issue of punitive damages, but otherwise denied.

            22STCV38830 – Aubrey Pittman v. MV Transportation, Inc. (Second Lawsuit)

            In this case, Plaintiff sued Defendant for two counts of retaliation under the FEHA and Labor Code section 1102.5 (whistleblower).

            After the events in the first lawsuit, Plaintiff filed a charge with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) on February 19, 2020, alleging that Defendant violated FEHA.  Defendant then brought the First Lawsuit on February 20, 2020.  Upon being served with the First Lawsuit, Defendant reportedly allowed Plaintiff to return to work as a bus driver in August 2020.  However, in July 2021, Plaintiff went on medical leave again because of the knee injury, but resumed work in February 2022.

            In May 2022, Defendant took Plaintiff’s second deposition in the First Lawsuit and immediately afterwards, Defendant informed Plaintiff to not report back to work.  On May 23, 2022, Defendant official terminated Plaintiff’s employment for “allegedly misrepresenting his C-PAP usage compliant to the DOT Medical Examiner.”  

            The most recent even is Defendant’s filing of an Answer on February 23, 2023.     

            The cases involve the same parties and arise from the same underlying events.

Both the Plaintiff and Defendant is the same in both actions.  The Second Lawsuit arises from the events in the First Lawsuit.  In fact, the Second Lawsuit is based upon the filing of the First Lawsuit.  That is, Plaintiff asserts that because he filed the First Lawsuit, Defendant then retaliated against him, necessitating the causes of action for retaliation in the Second Lawsuit.

Therefore, the Court finds the cases are related under California Rule of Court 3.300(a). 

Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to give notice.