Judge: Carolyn M. Caietti, Case: 37-2023-00013603-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-01-05 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 04, 2024

01/05/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-70 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Carolyn Caietti

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00013603-CU-PO-CTL JOHN DS ROE VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED IN PART.

Discussion Plaintiffs seeks a complete consolidation of this case, John DS Roe, et al v. County of San Diego, et al (Case No. 2023-13603) (the 'John Doe Action') and Jane LG Roe, et al v. County of San Diego, et al (Case No. 2023-30154) (the 'Jane Roe Action').

'When 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.' (C.C.P., § 1048(a).) A trial court has broad discretion to consolidate actions (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-79) and 'it is for the trial court to determine whether the consolidation is for all purposes or for trial only.' (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1149.) Under C.C.P. section 1048(a) and the case law, there are two types of consolidation: (1) a consolidation for purposes of trial only in which the two actions remain otherwise separate; and (2) a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes in which the two actions are merged into a single proceeding, under one case number and resulting in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment. (Hamilton, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 1147.) Here, the John Doe Action and the Jane Doe Actions involve common questions of law and fact.

(C.C.P., § 1048(a).) Both cases allege Plaintiffs were minors in the custody of the County of Diego and housed at County-run facilities where the plaintiffs were sexually assaulted/molested by County-employed probation officers. The County is named as a defendant in both cases. The causes of action in each operative complaint are nearly identical and/or the theories of liability, particularly against County, are the same. All of the victims were minors when the alleged acts occurred. Several of the alleged sexual assault/molestations occurred at the same County-run facilities maintained for juveniles.

All of the abuse was sexual in nature. Three of the alleged acts occurred in 1998, five occurred in the 2000s and three occurred in the 2010s. Plaintiffs anticipate the evidence will show the County-officers received the same training and were subject to the same rules and policies and supervised by the same person(s); and the same County policies and procedures will be at issue. Plaintiffs maintain statute of limitations issues will be almost identical, will be disposed of at the outset of the case and streamline the cases with a similar roadmap. Pretrial motions will likely be the same and liability arguments and experts' Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3029879  46 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  JOHN DS ROE VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED]  37-2023-00013603-CU-PO-CTL testimony about supervision practices will be the same.

As of now, only the County has been served with process and counsel is the same in both cases.

The cases will be ready for trial at or about the same time as they were filed within three months of each other. Consolidation will more than likely save time and money for the litigants as discovery and expert testimony on the liability theories against the County will likely overlap. There is a possibility that results reached in the cases will conflict particularly as related to the County. (See, Cal. Judges Benchbook: Civ. Proc. Before Trial, § 2.85.) However, each plaintiff has different facts that would need to be examined as to each County-employed officer. The individual defendants are not alleged to have each assaulted/molested more than one plaintiff. Each party is entitled to separate consideration. (CACI 103.) This would then present a substantial likelihood of confusing and misleading the jury about what is relevant as to each particular plaintiff and defendant. Thus, a complete consolidation is not appropriate.

The Court will determine closer to trial any bifurcation issues if/when raised by the parties.

On balance, there are substantial efficiencies to be gained by ordering a partial consolidation for purposes of pretrial proceedings and discovery. Duplicative discovery, motion work and pretrial issues can be avoided. The two actions, including their respective trials, can otherwise remain separate.

For these reasons, the motion is GRANTED IN PART. The cases will remain related. The Court will order consolidation for pretrial proceedings, including discovery, but not trial.

Concluding Orders This action (Case No. 2023-13603) is consolidated for purposes pretrial proceedings, including discovery, with Case No. 2023-30154. This action is deemed the lead case and all documents filed must comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(d).

If the tentative ruling is confirmed without modification, the Court's minute order will be the final order of the Court.

Plaintiffs are ordered to: (i) comply with CRC 3.350(c); and (ii) serve written notice of the Court's final order on all appearing parties by January 9, 2024.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3029879  46