Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case Number: 22STCV32640, Date: 2023-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Responding Party: Plaintiff Fabiola Cano (on behalf of herself and other similarly situated)

All three cases arise from Plaintiffs’ respective employment relationships with C.H. Laboratories.

Defendant C.H. Laboratories filed a notice of related case, indicating that case number 22STCV32640 (Jose Pedraza v. C.H. Laboratories) in Department 58 is related to case number 22STCV33176 (Ana Bautista v. C.H. Laboratories) in Department 17 and case number 22STCV33147 (Irma Bautista v. C.H. Laboratories) in Department 50.

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).)

As 22STCV32640is the earliest case, Department 58 shall determine whether the cases are related.

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).) Defendant C.H. Laboratories filed a notice of related case in all three cases.

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).) Plaintiff Fabiola Cano – the named Plaintiff in the matter of Cano v. CH Laboratories, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District, Spring Street Courthouse, Case No. 22STCV10449 – filed objections to the notice of related cases.

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).)

The cases do not arise from the same nucleus of facts. While there are overlapping claims, the claims are primarily based on the parties’ individual discrimination claims and Labor Code violations specific to each Plaintiff.[1]

In 22STCV32640, Plaintiff Pedraza alleges numerous Labor Code violations based on his employment with Defendant C.H. Laboratories that began in 2001. Additionally, he alleges violations of FEHA. The Complaint’s FEHA violation claims are based primarily on the allegations that “supervisor told PLAINTIFF that illegal immigrant employees would do anything for any amount of money paid to them, and that they could not do anything against the employer. Worse yet, this supervisor ordered PLAINTIFF to pressure employees to ‘work like slaves, like negros.’” (Compl., ¶ 11.) Plaintiff alleges that he suffered stress and paralysis prior to his termination. He was terminated on August 5, 2021.

In 22STCV39928, Plaintiff Ana Bautista also alleged various Labor Code violations against Defendant C.H. Laboratories. However, she also alleges FEHA violations based on her protected status; the Complaint alleges “she was pregnant in or about November 2021, and that she needed to take time offs and see her doctor for ultrasound” but Defendant refused to accommodate these medical appointments and terminated her on December 18, 2021. (Compl., ¶¶ 11-13.)

Finally, in 22STCV33147, Plaintiff Irma Bautista alleges – in addition to Labor Code violation—that she racially discriminated against due to her being Hispanic and discriminated based on her disability from injuries sustained while working for Defendant C.H. Laboratories. (Compl., ¶¶ 10-13.) She was terminated on February 22, 2022. (Compl., ¶ 13.)

The cases involve three overlapping parties – Defendant C.H. Laboratories, Defendant Employbridge LLC, and Defendant Brid Nolan (who are all treated as single party in the Complaint) – and similar employment claims. However, these claims arise from separate and distinct sets of facts; that is, the discrimination claims which form the basis of the Plaintiffs’ claims are unique to each Plaintiff and will ultimately require an individualized showing of proof specific to each Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court finds the cases are not related under California Rule of Court 3.300, subd. (a).

[1] (See 12/28/22 Minute Order for LASC Case No. 22STCV32304 [another court previously denied Defendant’s attempt to relate other similar plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant].) The Court in Department 17 already rejected the notice of related cases request in the Saldana v. C.H. Laboratories (22STCV32304) matter, which was filed on 10/3/2022. Defendant essentially seeks a second bite of the apple by now filing this notice of related case and excluding Saldana. For the purposes of relating cases, it is of no consequent that Saldana has settled and the matter is dismissed. (See CRC 3.300, subd. (a) [“A pending civil case is related to another pending civil case, or to a civil case that was dismissed with or without prejudice, or to a civil case that was disposed of by judgment . . ..”].)

Case Name	Case Number	Filing Date	Dept.
1. Jose Pedraza v. C.H. Laboratories	22STCV32640	10/05/22	58
2. Ana Bautista v. C.H. Laboratories	22STCV39928	10/10/22	17
3. Irma Bautista v. C.H. Laboratories	22STCV33147	10/10/22	50