Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 20STCV09522, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV09522    Hearing Date: February 28, 2024    Dept: 14

Lujan v. Dover

Case Background

Plaintiff is a line worker in a pump factory. He alleges that he suffered an on-the-job injury to his left hand which broke one of his fingers. He claims Defendants did not honor his doctor’s note putting him on light duty work restrictions. Later in the year Plaintiff suffered a shoulder injury and was put on light duty by the doctor, a recommendation that Plaintiff claims Defense again ignored and eventually fired him for.

            On December 11, 2020 Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) Disability Discrimination; (2) FEHA Retaliation; (3) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; (4) Failure to Accommodate; (5) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation; (6) Defamation; (7) Violation of CFRA; (8) CFRA Retaliation; and (9) Wrongful Termination against Defendants Dover Pump Solutions Group; Wilden Pump and Engineering, LLC (“Wilden”); PSG; Beth Seara (“Seara”); David Leedom (“Leedom”); and DOES 1-10.

On February 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed two “Amendments to Complaint” substituting Defendant Seara in lieu of DOE 1 and Defendant PSG – A Dover Company in lieu of DOE 3.

On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed two “Amendments to Complaint” substituting Defendants A Dover Company and Dover Corporation in lieu of DOEs 4-5, respectively.

On March 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed an “Amendment to Complaint” substituting Defendant PSG California, LLC (“PSG California”) in lieu of DOE 6. PSG California is the new name of Defendant Wilden.

On August 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed name corrections, changing the name of original Defendant PSG to “Pump Solutions Group” and changing the name of original Defendant Dover Pump Solutions Group to “Dover Corporation” – the same name as DOE 5.

The result of all these changes is the following list of Defendants: Dover Corporation, Pump Solutions Group, PSG California, Seara, Leedom, PSG – A Dover Company, and A Dover Company.

On June 1, 2022, Defendants PSG California, Seara, and Leedom filed their joint Amended Answer. On September 26, 2022, Defendant Dover Corporation filed its Answer.

            On November 3, 2022, this court dismissed Defendant Dover Corporation due to lack of timely service under Code of Civil Procedure § 583.410.

            On November 9, 2022, the default of Defendant PSG – A Dover Company was entered.

Defendant Pump Solutions Group has been served but has yet to file a responsive pleading. Defendant A Dover Company has not yet been served.

            On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Conditional Settlement of Entire Case.

Instant Motion

            Plaintiff now moves this court for an order entering judgment against Defendant PSG California, LLC, in the amount of $21,403.54, and for an award of $14,000.00 in attorney fees and costs.

Decision

            The motion is CONTINUED to May 1, 2024 at 8:30 am. The OSC re: Dismissal (Settlement) currently set for March 8, 2024 is also advanced and continued to May 1, 2024 at 8:30 am.

            On November 8, 2023, Defense counsel filed a Notice of Related Cases in Case No. 23 STLC 07184. Defense counsel is ORDERED to file a copy of that Notice in Case No. BC 704 715, by 4 pm today.

Governing Statute

            Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6 provides in relevant part as follows:

“(a) If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement…

(b) For purposes of this section, a writing is signed by a party if it is signed by any of the following:

(1) The party.

(2) An attorney who represents the party.”

Discussion

            Plaintiff’s counsel of record in this case are Mr. David R. Denis (“Denis”) and Mr. Armando M. Galvan from the Law Offices of David R. Denis, P.C. (“Firm”). Mr. Denis and the Firm are judgment debtors in the case of Eric Mintz v. Law Offices of David R. Denis PC, et al. (LASC Case No. BC 704 715), pending in Department 71 of this courthouse, before the Hon. Daniel M. Crowley. On May 17, 2023, Judge Crowley issued an order restraining Mr. Denis (and anyone else connected with him) from assigning, disposing, or spending any attorneys’ fee award that may become payable to Mr. Denis.

            On September 20, 2023, the parties to this case completed execution of a settlement agreement. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit B). That settlement included a separate amount for attorney’s fees payable directly to the Firm. (Id.).

            On October 17, 2023, Defense counsel in this case received a demand letter from Mr. Denis’s Judgment Creditor, informing them of the assignment order and directing that payment be sent to the Judgment Creditor instead. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit E).

            Defense counsel notified Mr. Denis and his Firm and made the following suggestion: their client would split the fee amount due to Mr. Denis into two increments and write two corresponding checks. The first would be in the amount of the judgment owed by Mr. Denis, and the second would be for the remainder. The first check would be directed to the Judgment Creditor, and the second would be directed to Mr. Denis. (Plaintiff’s Exhibits C-D).

            On October 26, 2023, Mr. Denis responded, refusing that proposal on the grounds that he had already paid the judgment. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit F). All counsel engaged in further back-and-forth but were unable to reconcile their respective positions. (Plaintiff’s Exhibits G-H). Defense informed Mr. Denis that they would interplead the disputed amount ($21,243.54) and send Mr. Denis a check for the remainder. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit H).

            That interpleader was ultimately filed on November 8, 2023, and given Case No. 23 STLC 07184. On that same date, Defendant PSG California also filed a Notice of Related Cases in Case No. 23 STLC 07184, identifying Case No. BC 704 715. However, they did not file a corresponding Notice of Related Cases in Case No. BC 704 715, as required by California Rules of Court Rule 3.300(d).

            Three months later, Plaintiff filed the instant motion, demanding that this court enter judgment against Defendant PSG California in the disputed amount.

            There is no issue currently ripe for decision in this department. Only Judge Crowley can determine whether and when the judgment entered in his department has been satisfied. Only the judge who hears the interpleader action can determine how the interpled funds will be paid. And only when those funds are disbursed will this court be able to judge what portion (if any) of the settlement amount remains unpaid.

            However, in the interest of moving this dispute to an efficient resolution, this court can direct Defense counsel to complete their filing on the Notice of Related Cases. CRC Rule 3.300(d) requires that the Notice be filed in both cases because Rule 3.300(h) specifies which of the two (or more) involved judges will decide whether to relate them. In this instance, Rule 3.300(h)(1)(B) directs that the judge in unlimited jurisdiction be the one to make the determination. The filing in the interpleader alone is ineffective, because the judge in that case is not empowered to make any decision, and it gives the judge in the other case nothing to rule on.

            The appropriate course of action at this point is for this court to step aside while the other two cases proceed, either as related cases or not. Once the predicate questions mentioned above have been decided, this issue will become ripe and can be resolved.

Conclusion

            There are issues pending in other courts that must be addressed before this court can determine either that there has been a breach or the appropriate remedy. Therefore, the motion is CONTINUED to May 1, 2024 at 8:30 am. The OSC re: Dismissal (Settlement) currently set for March 8, 2024 is also advanced and continued to May 1, 2024 at 8:30 am.

            Additionally, Defense counsel are ORDERED to complete their filing of the Notice of Related Case in Case No. 23 STLC 07184 by filing a copy of that Notice in Case No. BC 704 715. That copy is to be filed by 4 pm today.