Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 21STCV28186, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28186    Hearing Date: November 27, 2023    Dept: 14

(1)       Notice of Related Case

            On November 13, 2023, Defendant Spa Benjamin filed a Notice of Related Case identifying Case No. 23 STCV 01563.

Decision

            The cases are DEEMED RELATED. Case No. 21 STCV 28186 is the lead case Both cases are assigned to Judge Cherol J. Nellon in Department 14 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse for all purposes.

            All hearings in Case No. 23 STCV 01563 are advanced and taken off calendar. This order is made without prejudice to the parties making a motion to consolidate in the newly assigned department. The moving party is ordered to serve notice of this order (including hearings vacated, if necessary) by mail forthwith on all interested parties within ten (10) days of the receipt of this minute order.

            The court sets a Trial Setting Conference in Case No. 23 STCV 01563 for December 18, 2023, at 8:30 am.

Governing Standard

California Rules of Court Rule 3.300 states, in pertinent part, as follows:

            “(a)      Definition of ‘related case’

            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, if the cases:

                        (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…

            (h) Judicial action…

                        (1) If all the related cases have been filed in one superior court, the court,

on notice to all parties, may order that the cases…be related and may assign them to a single judge or department…[i]n a court in which cases are assigned to a single judge or department, cases may be ordered related as follows:

(A) Where all the cases listed in the notice are unlimited civil cases, or where all the cases listed in the notice are limited civil cases, the judge who has the earliest filed case must determine whether the cases must be ordered related and assigned to his or her department.”

Discussion

            Case No. 23 STCV 01563 is an action for damages brought by Defendant Spa Benjamin against its insurance broker and insurance carrier. In that action, Spa Benjamin alleges that the broker failed to procure, and the carrier failed to provide, the coverage needed and sought by Spa Benjamin. The damages alleged in that case consist entirely of Spa Benjamin’s costs of defending, and perhaps sustaining a judgment in, this personal injury case.

            Both parties concede that the cases are related; Defendant Spa Benjamin by filing the instant notice and the Plaintiff in her unopposed motion to continue trial, discussed below. The situation appears to be thus: Plaintiff and Spa Benjamin are afraid that if they try this case, Spa Benjamin will go bankrupt and the Plaintiff’s verdict will ultimately be reduced or eliminated by a bankruptcy discharge.

            However, if Spa Benjamin tries the other case first, it may not be able to recover full damages because the damages from trying this case will be speculative in nature.

            There are multiple ways to address this problem, but it is much easier to employ them if both cases are pending before a single judicial officer.

Conclusion

            Because the practical situation of the parties demands that these two cases be closely coordinated, the cases are DEEMED RELATED.

(2)       Motion to Continue

Plaintiff now moves this court for an order continuing trial to November of 2024.

Decision

            The motion is GRANTED, in part. The final status conference and trial dates are VACATED. The court sets a trial setting conference in this case for December 18, 2023, at 8:30 am. Discovery cutoffs will be calculated based on whatever trial date the court next sets.

Discussion

California Rules of Court Rule 3.1332(a) provides that trial dates are to be treated as firm. However, Rule 3.1332(c) provides that, although continuances are “disfavored,” requests should be considered on an individual basis. That subsection also includes a non-exhaustive list of possible grounds for a continuance.

            Here, the motion is based on the existence of the related case, discussed above. For practical financial reasons, these cases need to be coordinated to minimize prejudice to all parties involved by (1) preventing the defendants in the other case from facing speculative damages stemming from this case, (2) preventing Spa Benjamin from being bankrupted by a potential judgment beyond their ability to pay, and (3) preventing plaintiff from losing her judgment in Spa Benjamin’s bankruptcy.

            New trial dates should be the product of a discussion that involves all counsel on all cases. Since the cases have been deemed related, that discussion can now be had in this department. It should happen sooner rather than later, as this case is aging rapidly and the parties will most likely need to seek a global resolution.

Conclusion

            Plaintiff has established good cause for a continuance. A conversation between all counsel on the related cases is necessary before new trial dates can be set. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED, in part. The final status conference and trial dates are VACATED. The court sets a trial setting conference in this case for December 18, 2023, at 8:30 am. Discovery cutoffs will be calculated based on whatever trial date the court next sets.