Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 20STCV16798, Date: 2024-07-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV16798 Hearing Date: July 9, 2024 Dept: 76
Plaintiff alleges that after he
returned from medical leave after an industrial injury, Defendant stripped his
peace officer status and demoted Plaintiff to a low-level Intermediate Clerk
position with lower pay and reduced benefits. Plaintiff remains employed to
date with Defendant, in the demoted position.
Plaintiff Kim Pham moves to
consolidate this action with 23STCV01787 for all purposes or, in the
alternative, at the time of trial.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff Kim Pham’s motion to consolidate is CONTINUED to September 20, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.
ANALYSIS
Motion To Consolidate
Discussion
Plaintiff Kim Pham moves to consolidate this action with 23STCV01787 for all purposes or, in the alternative, at the time of trial.
Plaintiff represents the following as to the cases: (1) Case No. 20STCV16798 Kim Pham V. County Of Los Angeles Probation Department; Los Angeles County Probation Department; Toyea Sims, Cynthia Milauto; (2) Case No. 23STCV0178 Kim Pham V. County Of Los Angeles Probation Department; Los Angeles County Probation Department; Toyea Sims, Cynthia Milauto.
Plaintiff KIM PHAM has made an appearance in both actions and whose counsel of record in this matter is Kristen B. Brown, Esq., Kristen Brown Law Firm.
Defendant(s) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PROBATION DEPARTMENT; LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT have made appearances in both actions and represented in both actions by Hausman & Sosa, LLP.
TOYEA SIMS has answered in Case No. 20STCV16798 and represented by Hausman & Sosa, LLP.
TOYEA SIMS has been served in Case No. 23STCV0178 with a responsive pleading due on or about July 3, 2024.
CYNTHIA MALUTO has been served in both cases Case No. 20STCV16798 and Case No. 23STCV0178 with responsive pleadings due on or about July 3, 2024.
This motion will be made pursuant
to Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a) on the grounds that the actions involve common
questions of law or fact and are pending before this Court and the cases arise
out of the same transaction or incident. Plaintiff argues that the same
witnesses will likely testify and the same evidence will be presented in both
actions, and consolidated discovery and motions will avoid unnecessary costs
and delays and will serve the interests of economy and convenience. Plaintiff
argues that consolidation will avoid prejudice to Defendant of inconsistent
adjudications by the trier of fact on the same issues.
Regarding consolidation, Civ. Proc. Code, § 1048(a) provides:
(a) 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.
(Civ. Proc. Code, § 1048(a).)
“Whether separate actions shall be consolidated for trial is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. (Citation omitted.) . . . ‘A consolidation of actions does not affect the rights of the parties. The purpose of consolidation is merely to promote trial convenience and economy by avoiding duplication of procedure, particularly in the proof of issues common to both actions.’ (Citation omitted.)” (Estate of Baker (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 471, 485 [bold emphasis added].)
Here, 20STCV16798 is set to go to trial on October 14, 2024, while 23STCV01787 is set to go to trial on April 14, 2025. Defendants have a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication set to be heard on September 12, 2024. Per Defendants’ request, the Court will continue this motion to consolidate until after the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, which may dispose of this case in part or entirely, which may affect the consolidation analysis.
The hearing on the motion to
consolidate is CONTINUED to September 20, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.